Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 31st May for the Whitsun Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SAINT GEORGE, BOTOLPH LANE CHURCHYARD BILL

Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

As amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

CROSBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

ELY-OUSE ESSEX WATER BILL [Lords]

SAINT JAMES AND SAINT PAUL, PLUMSTEAD BILL [Lords]

SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Adela Shaw Orthopaedic Hospital, Kirbymoorside

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Adela Shaw Orthopaedic Hospital, Kirbymoorside.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): This is being considered by the Leeds Regional Hospital Board, which is consulting local interests. I have not yet received any formal proposal.

Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that the procedure laid down in circular 1958 has been disregarded in this case in that the Board has reached a decision, communicated it to the staff of the hospital and held a Press conference, at which it described the closure as inevitable, before


local interests were consulted and before a local inquiry was held? What action does the Minister intend to take to put this right?

Mr. Robinson: This is not my information. I am informed that local consultations are now proceeding and that the Board has not yet decided what proposals to put forward. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has arranged to meet the Board at an early date. I should not like to make any further statement until I have a proposal from the Board.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this hospital draws patients from a very wide area, much of which is very isolated, particularly in winter, and that, therefore, it is necessary to take into account the real needs of the locality before any decision is taken?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman knows that all decisions to close hospitals are made by me, and one of the factors I always take into account is the adequacy of alternative arrangements.

Heart Transplant Operation (Cost)

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the exceptional nature of the heart transplant operation at the National Heart Hospital on 3rd May, he will make a calculation of its cost.

Mr. K. Robinson: To calculate the full cost would involve making a number of arguable assumptions and then expending a disproportionate amount of time and effort.

Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members want to send good wishes for the complete recovery of the patient concerned? Does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate that the large sums involved in experimental advanced surgery of this kind— and about £20,000 is the figure I have seen—should come from the National Health Service budget? Will he consider asking Parliament for a special budget for research work of this kind?

Mr. Robinson: Research funds come from a number of different sources under existing arrangements. While paying tribute to the outstanding achievements of the hospital team which performed the operation, it would be well not to

forget the great contribution which the hospital service can make to the relief of human suffering by means of simpler and more routine procedures. I understand that the patient's improvement, following his relapse yesterday, has been maintained, but his condition still gives cause for concern.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In view of what the Minister has said, will he reassure the House that in counting the cost of these operations he is also counting the diversionary effect on more conventional treatment?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, certainly.

Dr. Winstanley: In addition to considering the cost and the whole question of priorities in the medical sphere in a matter of this kind, we ought to be considering further the question of the decision about the point at which death takes place and the question surrounding the giving of consent relating to operations of this kind. Does the Minister agree that it is time we debated the whole matter?

Mr. Robinson: The question of a debate is not for me, although I would welcome expressions of view from the House and from other quarters. The conference which I called has been reconvened and has reconsidered this matter. I shall be making a further statement to the House in due course.

Royal Hospital, Richmond (Casualty Department)

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Minister of Health why the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey, was informed by him by letter dated 14th May that there was no immediate prospect of the reopening of the casualty department of the Royal Hospital, Richmond, in view of the letter of the same date from the Chairman of the South-West Regional Hospital Board, informing the hon. Member that the department was reopened on 13th May; and if he will institute an immediate inquiry into this misunderstanding between his department and the Board.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's letter of 22nd May.

Mr. Royle: Will the hon. Gentleman now give a firm assurance that the casualty


department of the Royal Hospital, Richmond, will remain open?

Mr. Snow: As the hon. Gentleman probably remembers, during an Adjournment debate on the Friday preceding the Whitsun Recess I undertook to pursue inquiries with the regional board concerned about the future of this Department. This I shall carry out, and write to the hon. Gentleman when I have established the facts.

Imported Plastic Surgical Products (Sterility)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that certain imported plastic surgical instrumentation is less thoroughly sterilised than comparable British products necessarily sold at a higher price; what steps he is taking to ascertain whether this equipment is sterile; when he will announce an official definition of the word sterile; and if, meanwhile, he will ensure that none of the imported products will be bought for the National Health Service.

Mr. Snow: The sterility of these products can only be ascertained with certainty by inspection of manufacturing conditions and methods; the system of control by inspection and other means is being extended; there is no doubt about the definition of the word sterile; hospital authorities are warned when my Department has reason to believe that an item of medical equipment may be hazardous.

Mr. Driberg: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also extremely important to seek to define standards of packaging, and is he aware that shoddily packaged products identical with those that he told me in a letter would be rejected are now being bought by the Army and shipped all over the world to British military hospitals?

Mr. Snow: I shall certainly look into that matter in collaboration with my right hon. Friend in the Ministry of Defence, and when I have ascertained the facts so far as they affect my Department I shall write to my hon. Friend.

Sheffield Region (Doctors, Nurses and Hospital Beds)

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Health what is the ratio between the number of doctors, nurses and hospital beds

available and total population in the Sheffield Region; and how this ratio compares with that in other regions.

Mr. Snow: With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gardner: Is it not true that our region is relatively poorly provided for? Is not this a sad reflection on the previous Administration? Will my hon. Friend ensure that in future this region receives both capital and continuing financial payments to enable the Health Service to be really effective?

Mr. Snow: My hon. Friend is right. This is an inheritance with which we have had to deal. The deficiency of hospital beds and other facilities in many parts of the region was one of the principal factors taken into account in preparing the hospital building programme for the region. This programme is now well under way, and no doubt my hon. Friend knows of the new district general hospitals being built at Doncaster, Boston and Barnsley.

Following is the information:


NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE HOSPITAL MEDICAL STAFF, NURSES AND BEDS PER 10,000 POPULATION ENGLAND AND WALES✶


Region
Mdical Staff
Nursing Staff
Beds


All regions England and Wales
4·4
46·5
96·6


Newcastle
4·2
44·8
92·2


Leeds
3·9
47·0
105·2


Sheffield
3·2
36·8
76·4


East Anglian
3·4
37·0
84·1


Metropolitan regions
5·7
52·5
106·9


Oxford
4·3
43·4
83·2


Southwestern
3·8
50·1
108·1


Wales
4·3
50·0
100·0


Birmingham
3·6
38·5
86·2


Manchester
3·9
44·7
90·7


Liverpool
4·8
54·8
106·6


Wessex
3·5
43·1
90·5


✶ Estimated home population at 30th June, 1967. Medical and nursing staff in whole-time equivalents at 30th September, 1967. Beds at 31st December, 1967.

Hospital Admissions (Waiting Time)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Health what is the average waiting time in Great Britain for admission to hospital for cataract operations, varicose vein operations, tonsilectomy, adenoidectomy, for pay bed patients


and National Health patients, respectively; and what further steps are being taken to step up the proportion of National Health beds as compared with pay beds.

Mr. Snow: In 1966 in England and Wales the median waiting time for hospital admission of National Health Service patients was about 11 weeks for cataract, 12½ weeks for varicose veins and 15 weeks for tonsils and adenoids operations; comparable information about private patients is not available. My right hon. Friend has no plans for a further general review of pay beds at present.

Mr. Roberts: Would not my hon. Friend agree, however, that this idea of having first-class and second-class patients from the point of view of waiting time is completely alien to the ideology of the type of Health Service which most hon. Members on this side of the House want to build up? Would he agree that ultimately—in the long term if not in the short term—his aim must be to abolish pay beds?

Mr. Snow: The general intention of the review on this subject was quite adequately discussed earlier. As regards the local position, which may be of particular interest to my hon. Friend, he will know that there has recently been a small adjustment because of new circumstances and evidence which came to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Maddan: Would the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between the median waiting time which he gave in his Answer and the average waiting time for which his hon. Friend asked?

Mr. Snow: The median waiting time is the time waited by the middle case in a group listed in order of the amount of time waited. A large proportion of the cases occur around this point. The median time is not affected by a patient having a long waiting time, and the use of this formula gives more accurate information to the House.

Senior Psychiatric Social Workers

Dr. Winstanley: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many social workers in training are unable to

have the experience of a student placement in a psychiatric hospital for lack of a senior psychiatric social worker to teach them; and if he will therefore take steps to increase the number of such senior workers.

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend has told hospital authorities of the need and asked them to examine ways of extending training facilities.

Dr. Winstanley: We are grateful for that Answer as the existing salary structure operates to the disadvantage of hospital social workers and has hitherto been responsible for a drift of social workers from hospitals to local health authorities. The hon. Gentleman's statement will be very much welcomed.

Mr. Snow: I am much obliged.

New Hospitals

Mr. Maddan: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that hospitals to be built at Bury St. Edmunds and Frimley are very similar in concept to the proposal put forward two years ago by the Brighton consultants for a new hospital at Stanmer Park, the concept of which he rejected, he will now reconsider the application of the Stanmer Park concept in deciding future hospital developments.

Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. I cannot accept the premise on which the hon. Member's Question is based.

Mr. Maddan: Is the Minister aware that an official spokesman of his Ministry told the Brighton Evening Argus that the concepts were similar? Does he agree that the constructional features in these two new hospitals are very similar to those put forward by the Brighton consultants, and will he go a step further and adopt the ideas of the Brighton consultants for the fast throughput in acute hospital beds which is also an essential part of their scheme?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I have already said that I am not prepared to do so. My view is quite clear that these concepts are very different. I will examine what the spokesman is alleged to have said to the Brighton Evening Argus.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Mental Illness

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Health what increased expenditure he is proposing for 1968-69 on research into the causes and treatment of mental illnesses.

Mr. K. Robinson: Expenditure by my Department on research into various aspects of mental illness and mental sub-normality will be about £54,000 in 1968–69, compared with £33,000 in 1967–68.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As about half the beds in this country are occupied by people suffering from mental illness, will the right hon. Gentleman, in this Mental Health Week, do something to increase the effort, both financial and otherwise, put into research?

Mr. Robinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the main agencies for the support of research are the universities and the Medical Research Council for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is responsible. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Lipton: Without denying the value of this kind of research, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give priority to ensuring that local health authorities have a sufficient number of local health workers to visit mental cases on a domiciliary basis?

Mr. Robinson: I think that we need both.

Lord Balniel: As only 8 per cent. of the Medical Research Council's budget is devoted to research into mental illness and mental subnormality, and as, as my hon. Friend said, 50 per cent. of the hospital beds are occupied by patients who are mentally ill, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there ought to be a marked improvement or a full explanation given to the public so that this situation is acceptable to them?

Mr. Robinson: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address questions about the Medical Research Council to my right hon. Friend who is the responsible Minister.

Epileptics

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health why it is taking eight years for the Joint Committee of his Standing Medical Advisory Committee and his Advisory Committee on the Health and Welfare of Handicapped Persons to report on the implementation of the recommendation of the Cohen Report on medical and welfare service for epileptics.

Mr. K. Robinson: The recommendations of the Committee on the Medical Care of Epileptics were commended to hospital authorities when its Report was published in 1956. This followed appropriate advice to local authorities in 1953. The Joint Sub-Committee of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee was set up in 1967 to review the nature and scope of the services currently provided and to advise on their future development. Its report cannot be expected yet.

Mr. Pavitt: Can my right hon. Friend say why it took from 1956 until he took office to report what happened as a result of this Report, and, as this question of epilepsy deals with mental health, will he take the opportunity to welcome Mental Health Week and the excellent work being done by the National Association?

Mr. Robinson: I warmly welcome Mental Health Week with which I have been associated in past incarnations. I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to comment on the sins of omission of previous Governments.

Prescription Charges

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Minister of Health by what means the patient will be able to appeal against a refusal to grant exemption from prescription charges.

Mr. K. Robinson: There is no formal right of appeal; but any representations made to my Department or to that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security against a refusal to issue an exemption certificate will be carefully considered.

Dr. Dunwoody: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that many people have had great difficulty in reading, and more


so in understanding, the advertisements about exemptions, and that the absence of a more formal means of appeal will leave many patients with a sense of grievance in the months ahead?

Mr. Robinson: I hope not. I think my hon. Friend will recognise that executive councils are not exercising any discretion. They are dealing with medically supported facts in issuing exemption certificates. I do not think that this is an appropriate situation for any formal right of appeal, but I am prepared to investigate any representations which might be made to me.

Mr. Dean: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he will put his officers in a difficult position? As interested parties, they are going to be judge and jury in the cases concerned, are they not?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I do not think that that is the case. I think it more likely that there might be representations on grounds of financial hardship, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security, who is well accustomed to this sort of problem.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend take a special look at the problem of appeals in relation to the hospital service? Only yesterday there was considerable confusion, and there is a need for further advice, especially to newly employed people, to cope with this problem.

Mr. Robinson: If my hon. Friend gives me any evidence, I shall certainly consider whether further advice to hospital authorities is necessary.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the grievance which the reimposition of prescription charges will cause, can the right hon. Gentleman say how much money will be saved by their reimposition? Could not cuts have been made in other Government expenditure in place of these?

Mr. Robinson: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman being present in the House when we debated the matter just before the House rose for the Whitsun Recess. It was dealt with at some length then. The saving will be about £25 million a year.

Rural Areas (Pharmaceutical Services)

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to improve facilities for obtaining medicines prescribed by doctors in rural areas.

Mr. K. Robinson: Executive councils are responsible for securing the provision of adequate pharmaceutical services in their areas and for dealing with any local difficulties which may arise. I am not aware of any need for general action.

Mr. Gardner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that with the growing number of old people and the progressive decline in rural transport services it is becoming more and more difficult for old people to get to chemists' shops to get prescriptions made up? Will he ask local executive councils to look at the whole problem again?

Mr. Robinson: I think that executive councils keep this matter continuously under review. The difficulties in remote areas are often eased by informal arrangements, or, where these are not appropriate, by schemes organised with safeguards and with the advice of the Pharmaceutical Society for the collection of prescriptions and the delivery of medicines.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In considering the difficulty of dealing with prescriptions, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to forget the problem of people in remote country areas buying household remedies? Will he give an assurance that the general sale list to meet these needs will, from the start, be made as wide as possible?

Mr. Robinson: I hardly think that that arises out of this Question, but I think that I gave the hon. Gentleman similar assurances during the Committee stage of the Medicines Bill.

Mr. Cant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in important urban areas such as Stoke-on-Trent there are pharmaceutical deserts in which people do not have access to chemists' shops? Will my right hon. Friend consult the executive councils to try to set up a chain of pharmaceutical prescription collection points, because the pharmaceutical authorities are


favourably disposed towards that suggestion?

Mr. Robinson: If my hon. Friend has a particular area in mind and would like to send me details, I will certainly look into it, but I should remind the House that I have no power to require a pharmacist to practice in a particular place.

Cigarette Coupons

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Minister of Health if he will state when he intends to introduce legislation to ban cigarette coupons.

Mr. K. Robinson: I cannot say at present.

Dr. Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend at least confirm that he will be introducing legislation in the near future, without giving us any definite date? Would he go a little further, in view of the fact that over 30,000 people will die of lung cancer in this country this year, and start now a much bigger public health and educational campaign to try to get people off cigarette smoking?

Mr. Robinson: On the question of the campaign against cigarette smoking, the newly-constituted Health Education Council will be dealing with this matter in due course. As to the time of the legislation, my hon. Friend knows that it is not for me to decide. The statement which I made on 23rd October last stands.

Mr. Frederic Harris: While it is obviously important and invaluable for the Ministry to put over all the information it can by way of publicity to people warning them of the dangers of unnecessary smoking, may I ask what is the point of trying to ban their smoking if they so wish, since they can die in any way they wish?

Mr. Robinson: I have a responsibility to the House and the country for the promotion of health as well as the cure of disease.

Mr. Frederic Harris: You might as well ban everything.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would my right hon. Friend see that any proposed Bill along these lines is put in the dustiest pigeon-hole in his Ministry and allowed to remain there?

Sir J. Rodgers: Would the right hon. Gentleman resist the temptation to interfere with the marketing methods used by the firms concerned of a product which is freely on sale?

Nurses and Midwives (Pay)

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a detailed statement on the National Board for Prices and Incomes' Report No. 60 on the Pay of Nurses and Midwives in the National Health Service.

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the Minister of Health whether he will now make a detailed statement on Report No. 60 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the Pay of Nurses and Midwives in the National Health Service.

Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Members to my reply on 28th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 761, c. 335–6.] So far the Whitley Council has reached agreement on a number of recommendations including the four per cent. increase, effective from 1st October, 1967, in salaries and board and lodging charges, the psychiatric and geriatric leads, effective from 1st April, 1968, and the extension of overtime payments in psychiatric hospitals, effective from 1st October, 1968.

Mr. Dean: In that reply, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be having discussions with the nurses and midwives concerning the recommendations about training and management. Have those discussions yet taken place?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir, they have not taken place, but they will take place shortly.

Mr. Boardman: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable feeling of unfairness among student and pupil nurses living in, because, at the end of May, they were required to pay increased charges for board and lodging which they have already had and paid for over the previous eight months?

Mr. Robinson: Board and lodging charges, which are still heavily subsidised, have always been linked with the pay of student and pupil nurses, and


it was a clear recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Board that the two increases should be operative simultaneously.

Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend undertake to look very carefully at this proposition, especially where there are gross and unfair anomalies in the Board's Report? Is it not the case, for instance, that a three-year trained staff nurse at the maximum will get less than a two-year trained senior enrolled nurse? Is this not a gross reflection on the nursing profession?

Mr. Robinson: These matters will be considered in detail by the Whitley Council and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them while these negotiations are in progress.

Mr. Moyle: Would my right hon. Friend not think it appropriate at this time to advise the Whitley Council that overtime payments should now be made to all nurses, no matter what sort of hospital they work in?

Mr. Robinson: It is not for me to advise the Whitley Council. The Council is considering the recommendation of the Board which, with the agreement of the Government and the profession, considered the whole matter of nurses' pay.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Surely it is within the Minister's competence to express an opinion about differentials. Can he assure us that he has taken the point of the narrowing of the differential, partly due to overtime, between the highest-paid auxiliaries at the lower end of the scale and the lowest-paid matrons at the top end of the scale? Would he not consider the effect of this on recruitment, on people staying in the profession and on incentives for those seeking higher positions, particularly tutorial positions?

Mr. Robinson: I have had no representations on this matter yet, but I will consider the point which the hon. Gentleman raises.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Health whether any nurses will receive less payment as a result of the review of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the pay of nurses.

Mr. K. Robinson: The Board's recommendations on pay are still under negotiation in the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council. None of the agreements so far reached could result in a nurse receiving less payment.

Mr. Fisher: Is it not rather strange to find, in a Report stressing the need to attract more part-time staff, that nurses who work only on Sunday or do night duty on fewer than five nights a week will, so far as I can see, actually receive less? If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman iron out that kind of anomaly?

Mr. Robinson: This point is still under discussion, and, although a considerable extension of the arrangements for special duty payments is recommended—at considerable cost, I may say, to the Exchequer—the present rates would be reduced for many nurses. This matter is being discussed by the Whitley Council, which is seeking further advice from the Prices and Incomes Board.

Mr. Dean: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that no nurses will receive less pay under the new arrangements?

Mr. Robinson: It would be wrong for me to give any assurance at this stage while the matter is not only under discussion at the Whitley Council but has gone back to the Prices and Incomes Board.

Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a detailed statement on the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration 9th Report, Command Paper No. 3600.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a detailed statement on the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration 9th Report Command Paper No. 3600.

Mr. K. Robinson: Discussions are in progress with the medical profession on matters left for negotiation with them but implementation of the Review Body's recommendations for doctors and hospital dentists must await the professions' decisions on these recommendations. It has been agreed that the recommendation


that the target net income of general dental practitioners should remain unchanged does not at present require revision of the scale of fees.

Mr. Macmillan: But does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of the amount which is spent on training and the increasing amount which it is proposed that the Commission should spend, that an increase in doctors' remuneration is required if medical practitioners are to be retained in this country and he does not in future face the necessity of sending missions to the United States to try to get them to come back?

Mr. Robinson: All these points were considered by the Review Body on the evidence submitted by the profession, and it made its Report. That Report is still under discussion, as I said, with the profession.

Royal Commission on Medical Education

Mr. van Stranbenzee: asked the Minister of Health whether he will now make a statement on the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have nothing yet to add to my reply of 23rd April to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden. West (Mr. Pavitt).—[Vol. 763, c. 22.]

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does not the Minister appreciate, while one understands the necessity for consultation, that, in the interim, the whole system of medical education is in the melting pot, right across the board? Does he not feel that that lends urgency to a decision by him?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised on 4th April, the Government are now examining the recommendations in the Report most urgently.

Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Minister of Health how many full-time training centres are now approved by the Training Council for Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped; and how

many this represents for adult training centres and junior training centres.

Mr. Snow: There are 17 full-time courses approved by the Training Council now in operation and the number will increase in September to 22, of which seven will be for staff of adult centres and 15 for staff of junior centres.

Mr. Macmillan: I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's answer—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not in your brief."]—At least I write my own. He implied that he was talking about how many courses were approved by the Training Council. I asked how many training centres are approved. May I take it that the answer is the same in both cases?

Mr. Cant: On a point of order. Are we witnessing an innovation in constitutional practice, in that the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) is reading from a carefully prepared brief? If this is so, are these briefs prepared by the Civil Service?

Mr. Speaker: That is an interesting point, but not exactly a point of order.

Mr. Snow: I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman's question qualitatively. In most cases the terms are synonymous, but not absolutely so. There is a new possibility of recruiting more people for this sort of work in the shape of the new course being established at the Ewell Technical College, a part-time two-year course for older women wishing to take up the teaching of mentally handicapped children, and this will start shortly.

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Health how many teachers employed in training centres for the mentally handicapped are qualified.

Mr. Snow: At 30th September, 1967, 1,020 supervisors and assistant supervisors in local authority training centres were qualified to teach the mentally handicapped.

Mr. Dean: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the new methods of training are yielding very encouraging results and does not this suggest that a higher priority should be given to qualified teachers?

Mr. Snow: The figures for staff who are now undergoing courses and are securing appointments show a quite reasonable improvement, but we have a lot of leeway to make up.

Old People

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the evidence as to the number of old people not getting the services they need, put forward by the Officer of Health Economics, details of which have been sent to him; what conclusion he has reached; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Snow: The research reported in this useful publication is well known both to my Department and to the authorities responsible for providing services. Development of existing services will continue, and the authorities' powers will be greatly augmented by Clause 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Bill at present before Parliament.

Mr. Fisher: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that nearly three-quarters of a million people over the age of 65 who are in need of, for example, chiropody services, are not receiving them and that the demand for the home help service is more than twice the rate of supply? Will he seek to extend these services which are so important to old people?

Mr. Snow: If the hon. Gentleman examines the proceedings in Committee on the Clause to which I have referred he will see that the matter was adequately discussed, and we think that it will increase flexibility in the provision of the care and various services which he mentioned. These points were discussed and examined to the general satisfaction of that Committee, but perhaps we can look at the matter again.

Lord Balniel: Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that many elderly people occupying expensive and scarce hospital beds could be more effectively and more happily cared for in sheltered accommodation with proper domiciliary services? Will he place the emphasis of his policy on short-stay geriatric units

coupled with adequate domiciliary services?

Mr. Snow: That is the emphasis which we are at present placing, but we believe that the increased general facilities about which I spoke when answering his hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) cover the point he has made, in addition to the more general question.

Children (Inoculations)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the large number of inoculations and immunisations required by children which are spread over a long period, if he will recommend to local health authorities that they adopt a standard official form of record card to be given to parents to enable them to check that inoculations are given at the right time.

Mr. Snow: Many local health authorities already issue record cards for this purpose, and this was one of the points brought to the notice of medical officers of health by my right hon. Friend's Chief Medical Officer in a recent letter aimed at improving acceptance rates.

Captain Elliot: I appreciate that, but does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that as the number of inoculations and immunisations increases, so it would be advantageous to standardise the form to ensure that it is the same throughout the country?

Mr. Snow: This would be desirable but not entirely practicable since local practice and usage is not identical in all areas. My right hon. Friend is commending a new schedule which will go a long way to meet what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Would my hon. Friend realise that this is a matter of particular importance to patients in remote parts of Scotland and in country districts? Will he, in making any beneficial changes, bear this in mind?

Mr. Snow: I will always take note of anything mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend, but this matter would be more appropriately raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Geriatric Patients Domiciliary Care)

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to increase facilities for the domiciliary care of geriatric patients.

Mr. Snow: Local authorities plan substantial development of their domiciliary health and welfare services for the elderly and others and the powers envisaged in Clause 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Bill should assist this. The increasing association of local authority nurses and health visitors with family doctors should improve the domiciliary services available to all, including the elderly. Day hospital and outpatient geriatric provision is also being expanded.

Dr. Sunmerskill: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, as his general policy is to decrease the number of old people's beds in hospitals and not to increase them, a great burden will rest on general practitioners and local authority services?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. While this is so, it is not necessarily undesirable. The intentions behind Clause 45, to which I have referred this afternoon, include using facilities outside hospitals which may in many cases be more desirable and satisfactory to the people concerned. This is a more flexible attitude which my right hon. Friend has adopted and which we think will serve the public well.

Dr. Winstanley: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion, put to him several times, of the appointment of a new officer to local health authorities —an old person's officer—to be responsible for the integration of all these services which are coming from so many different sources?

Mr. Snow: I will look at this matter and discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

Doctors

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to encourage doctors to remain in this country rather than leaving to work permanently abroad.

Mr. K. Robinson: A number of important improvements in the working conditions of hospital doctors were agreed last

year and further proposals have been made with a view to improving career planning and prospects of junior doctors. As regards general practice, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) on 5th February.—[Vol. 758, c. 13–14.] My aim is to improve still further, in consultation with representatives of the profession, working conditions throughout the National Health Service as the best means of encouraging doctors to remain in this country.

Dr. Summerskill: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the emigration of at least 500 doctors a year is extremely serious? Has he implemented the suggestions made to him by the group of doctors who recently visited America to interview other doctors who had emigrated there?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. I have certainly considered that report and I agree that emigration is a serious problem. However, it is not a new problem and nor is it one confined to this country. The best statistics I have available suggest that, on average, in the three years ending September, 1965—the latest date for which figures are available—the annual net loss of British doctors was about 370.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Is the Minister aware that the hand-out his Ministry issued on Friday, 5th January, indicated that the main reasons for doctors leaving the country were medical, that is, the conditions of work, and the main reasons for their return were non-medical, that is, considerations about children's education and so on? Therefore, when considering net figures such as those he has just quoted, will he bear in mind that what is bringing the doctors back is not necessarily the conditions of the National Health Service, although that may be what is sending them out in the first place?

Mr. Robinson: We are steadily improving conditions in the National Health Service. As I said in my reply, it is our aim to make further progress in this direction.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend look at the position of the junior partners in general practice partnerships, as the conditions of service and the partnership agreements they have signed


are sometimes the reasons why they emigrate?

Mr. Robinson: This may well be the case, but my hon. Friend knows that the question of partnership agreements freely entered into between doctors is not a matter for me.

Mr. Costain: Is the Minister aware that a number of doctors are writing to their Members of Parliament saying that they wish to emigrate, because they feel that they are losing the art of medicine in this country and are becoming form-fillers and not healers?

Mr. Robinson: I think that there were always a small minority of doctors who wrote in this strain.

Mental Health Education

Dr. Winstanley: asked the Minister of Health if mental health education is to be part of the responsibility of the newly-formed Health Education Council.

Mr. K. Robinson: The Council's remit extends to mental health education.

Dr. Winstanley: In view of the Minister's statement, which I welcome, would not it be helpful to have on the Council one person clearly identifiable as having a primary interest in mental health?

Mr. Robinson: I think that there is more than one member of the Council who has had experience of this work, and there is an additional member who I know has experience whose appointment takes place in a month or two.

Disabled People (Home Employment)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities run home employment schemes; and how many mentally and physically disabled people are assisted in this way.

Mr. Snow: Paid home employment is provided for 798 blind people by local authorities under schemes for home workers. No other statistical information is available.

Mr. Lnbbock: Why cannot this scheme be extended to the psychiatric patients? Does the Minister realise that that would have an immense therapeutic value? Will he see that local authorities extend it to this group?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir, but we must bear in mind that a slight difficulty develops sooner or later over social security benefits to which such patients are entitled. Therefore, we must watch the position rather carefully. There is no objection to this sort of incentive being provided.

Mentally Handicapped Adults (Training Centres)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister of Health if he is yet in a position to issue guidance to local authorities on the principles which should govern incentive payments to trainees in adult training centres for the mentally handicapped.

Mr. Snow: Guidance was issued last October.

Mr. Steel: Can the Minister say what the response to the guidance has been from the local authorities? Is he satisfied that it is working correctly?

Mr. Snow: It is a little early to read any particular lesson into the guidance that was given, but as regards incentive payments for mentally handicapped patients in training centres, we are under the impression that there are grounds for optimism. We must watch the position over supplementary benefits rather carefully, as I said in reply to an earlier Question.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Lord President of the Council on 10th May at Aynho about the freedom of the Press represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The published portion of my right hon. Friend's speech to the Banbury Constituency Labour Party—and it is this which I imagine the hon. and learned Member has in mind—did not deal with matters of Government policy, Sir.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it really true that the Prime Minister has suffered from the Press " an orgy of abject and uncritical adulation", as the Lord President said? What does the Wonder Boy say?

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister when he will make an official visit to Czechoslovakia.

The Prime Minister: I have no present plans for such a visit, Sir.

Mr. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Conservative Government once betrayed Czechoslovakia in the same way as the Opposition would now betray the people of Rhodesia? Will he seek to make amends by considering what economic assistance can be given to Czechoslovakia to maintain conditions in which there can be further progress towards freedom? In particular, will he consider releasing a certain amount of gold to that country?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on what is currently happening internally in Czechoslovakia, but two of my right hon. Friends have recently visited Czechoslovakia and one discussed in some detail the possibility of improving trade arrangements with Czechoslovakia. I think that trade rather than economic assistance is what would be appropriate.

Sir C. Osborne: Arising from the supplementary question, will the Prime Minister tell the House how a previous Conservative Government could have saved Czechoslovakia from its fate when the Labour Opposition refused to vote any arms at all and were against conscription?

The Prime Minister: It all seems a long time ago, but I do not believe that many Conservatives today defend their then Government's record in 1938.

RHODESIA

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make further efforts to negotiate a settlement of the Rhodesian question.

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia in the light of the Whiley Report and the United Nations resolution.

Mr. Archer: asked the Prime Minister what further action is proposed

through the United Nations Organisation to end the illegal régime in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Our policy regarding a settlement in Rhodesia remains as described by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and myself during the debate on Rhodesia on 27th March. On the question of action through the United Nations I would refer hon. Members to the Answers given by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary to Questions on 30th May.— [Vol. 761, c. 1662; Vol. 761, c. 1545; Vol. 765, c. 2135.]

Mr. Lloyd: Lest the House may be tempted to conclude from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman enjoys his rôle as the eye in the centre of the typhoon, will he state unequivocally—I know that that is "difficult for him—if he is prepared to resume negotiations with Mr. Smith forthwith?

The Prime Minister: The position is exactly as stated in the debate and several times in Answers to Questions since. We have said that we are prepared to consider any possibility arising out of a willingness to implement the six principles. There has so far been little evidence of any willingness to accept the six principles, and in the most recent public statement there was a flat denial of their acceptability to Rhodesia.

Mr. Wall: If the Prime Minister will not talk to the Rhodesians, is his policy now to wait until sanctions have caused the Africans to revolt? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his Ministers have had any talks with African leaders who organise the freedom fighters-cum-terrorists?

The Prime Minister: I see that the hon. Gentleman is very faithfully reporting a speech by Mr. Smith during the Recess. The position is that, appropriately, Commonwealth Office Ministers have had talks with African nationalist organisations in this country and in Lusaka. We do not accept the illegal proscription or detention of Africans carried out by the hon. Gentleman's friends, and it is perfectly appropriate that the Government who have the ultimate responsibility for deciding the fate of Rhodesia in a Parliamentary sense should have


talks with representatives of the majority as well as the minority in Rhodesia.

Mr. Archer: Can my right hon. Friend say approximately how many countries have initiated action to implement the Security Council Resolution? Will he confirm that right hon. and hon. Members opposite who for months have been declaring that sanctions must be ineffective are likely shortly to find their doubts on that score set at rest?

The Prime Minister: I have not had an up-to-date list of the number of countries that have already taken legislative or executive action, but certainly a number of countries quoted by hon. Members opposite as permitting trade with Rhodesia have already taken action. With regard to my hon. Friend's second question, I do not think that there will be any doubt that sanctions are having a considerable effect and that there is great anxiety in Rhodesia about them. No one in the House would want to see sanctions last for a day longer than necessary. As I said to Mr. Smith on H.M.S. " Tiger ", we could have started to unwind sanctions in December, 1966, if he had accepted the terms then proposed to him, which the Conservatives supported him in rejecting.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the Prime Minister aware that we on this bench welcome the steps which have just been announced by Her Majesty's Government in order to negotiate the right kind of settlement?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Of course, this is a question of the right kind of settlement. Everyone wants to see a settlement there but that settlement must be in accordance with the principles laid down by the previous Government in this country and accepted by Her Majesty's present Government. These are the principles which the whole House has maintained and if any hon. Members in any part of the House are prepared to rat on those principles, we are not.

Mr. Whitaker: Although it is possible that the Monday Club is right and that the unanimous view of the Security Council is wrong, is it not a fact that the Rho-desian Front has rejected the Whaley Report and has come down on the side of permanent white supremacy? Does not this show the futility of further negotiations with Ian Smith? In what way is the

United Nations proposing to make sure that the new sanctions are effective?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that any hon. Member has suggested that the Whaley Report was consistent with the six principles, but, whereas Mr. Smith showed some desire to accept it, it is clear that pressure from the Right caused him to move into the even more intransigent position which was set out in his interview with the Sunday Telegraph some weeks ago.

Mr. Sandys: Will the Prime Minister give a clear answer to the question put to him earlier? Is he or is he not prepared to resume talks with Mr. Smith now with a view to making a further effort to find out whether it is possible to reach a settlement?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to our debate in March, his absence from which we all regret and understand, when I stated the position clearly. I have repeated that position many times since. If we get clear evidence of acceptance of the six principles from those who have the power to talk in Rhodesia, we will be prepared to talk, but every attempt made so far has led either to the rejection of the six principles or, when progress was being made, to a scurrying away under pressure from the Right wing. In any case, we cannot deal with the racialists in Rhodesia.

Mr. Tinn: Despite what has been said on the Opposition benches about the ineffectiveness of sanctions, has my right hon. Friend noted the reports from Rhodesia about increasing pressure by business interests on the Smith régime? Would not he agree that, until this kind of pressure for a more realistic attitude by the régime begins to show results, it would be premature to consider further approaches to Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: It is not so much a question of a more realistic attitude by the régime but of a more broadly-based Government such as we proposed to Mr. Smith in the talks on H.M.S. "Tiger" and which at that time he was prepared to contemplate. There is no doubt, from the pressures and very gloomy statements both by the tobacco industry and by the organised chambers of commerce and industry, that sanctions are having a very


serious effect. We all regret that they have had to go on so long and that there has been no response by those responsible to the kind of offers made so frequently in accordance with the six principles.

MINISTER OF TECHNOLOGY (SPEECH)

Mr. Sandys: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Minister of Technology at Llandudno on 25th May, recommending changes in the Parliamentary system, with a view to preventing a breakdown of law and order, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Turton: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Minister of Technology at Llandudno on 25 th May on the use of referenda represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the Answer I gave on 29th May to a Question by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). [Vol. 765, c. 241–2.]

Mr. Sandys: If the Prime Minister shares the view of the Minister of Technology that Parliament is getting out of touch with the country, has he considered the idea of holding a Genera] Election?

The Prime Minister: I do not in any way share the view that Parliament is out of touch with the country. I heard the noteworthy broadcast the day after my right hon. Friend's speech in which my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman expressed their personal views on these matters. I thought that the truth lay somewhere between the two.

Mr. Turton: Would not the Prime Minister be wise to accept the Minister of Technology's advice and hold a referendum on whether or not we should withdraw our application to join the Common Market and so avoid the discontent which the Minister of Technology envisaged would engulf the nation in bloodshed?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any question of bloodshed

arising from the decision to apply to join the Common Market, which was accepted by such a large majority in the House. I do not recall that my right hon. Friend suggested a referendum on the matter which is so dear to the right hon. Gentleman's heart, but I think that most right hon. and hon. Members would regret the idea of government by referendum.

Mr. Atkinson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is great danger in having a referendum, which might quickly become a plebiscite? Recognising this, and also accepting that a gap may be widening between public and Parliament, may I ask him to look into the possibility of creating a system whereby it is possible for members of the public to record their opinions and make those opinions collectively accessible to Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that my hon. Friend always fully responds to these judgments when they are made by members of the general public, but I think that the real issue, as the House recognises, is that every Government of whatever party must sometimes take, over a fairly lengthy period, measures unpopular but necessary. If each of these measures or each tax proposal had to be submitted to an immediate referendum, there would be no Government and no taxation.

PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)

Mr. Archer: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Church Assembly in Scotland on human rights on Sunday, 26th May.

Mr. Rose: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public address to the Church Assembly in Scotland on Saturday, 25th May.

The Prime Minister: I have already done so, Sir.

Mr. Archer: My own researches confirm my right hon. Friend's answer and I thank him for his action. Will he confirm that, with a few rather bad exceptions, the civilised world is moving towards a consensus about the proper


treatment of minorities and that, if the Race Relations Bill reaches the Statute Book substantially in its present form, we shall shortly be in a position to ratify the United Nations Convention on Racial Discrimination?

The Prime Minister: My speech referred to the Race Relations Bill but in a non-political and non-party sense appropriate to a gathering of that kind. Indeed, I went so far as to quote what had been said by certain right hon. Members opposite on the question. I agree that some of the deep disappointments there have been in other countries, and the attempt, which appalled so many of us recently, to whip up racial hatred in this country, are exceptions to the decent views of the people of this country and of most other countries where we have seen these manifestations as well.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What is the Prime Minister doing about the improvement of race relations in Nigeria?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the extremely difficult situation following the breakdown of the talks which we tried so hard to get established in Kampala, my right hon. Friend will be answering a Question, I understand, at the end of Question Time on the whole situation in relation to Nigeria.

PRESIDENT BOURGUIBA

Mr. Hooley: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the President of Tunisia to visit the United Kingdom to discuss matters of mutual concern.

The Prime Minister: I have no present plans to discuss matters of mutual concern with President Bourguiba but he would of course always be a most welcome visitor to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hooley: Has my right hon. Friend seen the constructive and statesmanlike proposals put forward by President Bourguiba recently for a solution of the Middle East situation? What initiative are Her Majesty's Government using to take steps towards the solution of the increasingly dangerous situation in the Middle East?

The Prime Minister: While some form of United Nations force might have a

place in any arrangements for putting the Security Council Resolution of 22nd November into effect—and this was envisaged, as he explained at the time, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) when he was Foreign Secretary—it would be inappropriate for me at this moment to comment when Mr. Jarring is pursuing his very difficult talks in New York. We must leave implementation matters until those talks make further progress.

WOMEN (PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the disproportionately small number of women appointed by him to serve on public committees, councils and boards, and of the valuable services rendered by women in the Civil Service and in other spheres; and what plans he has made to correct this disproportion in future appointments.

The Prime Minister: The Government are well aware of the contribution women can and do make in so many spheres; as to public appointments, these are made solely on the basis of suitability for the post concerned, and very many women have accordingly been appointed.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the success of those already appointed, and indeed those elected to this House, will the Prime Minister appoint more so as to establish equality between the sexes in the various spheres of public service?

The Prime Minister: The real way, of course, to establish and honour the principle of equality is to appoint the best person for the job regardless of whether that person is a man or a woman. If one starts arguing that we have to appoint more women just because they are women that is a denial of equality in itself.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the Prime Minister aware that on regional economic planning councils women are conspicuous by their absence? In view of his expressed opinion, will he correct this omission?

The Prime Minister: That has already been noticed and there will be discussion about it when vacancies occur.

YUGOSLAVIA (MR. PHILIP DOBSON)

Sir J. Rodgers: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the position of his constituent, Philip Dobson, who was recently sentenced to six years' imprisonment in Yugoslavia following a road accident.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): Immediately after my arrival in Yugoslavia 1 discussed Mr. Dobson's case with Her Majesty's Ambassador and Her Majesty's Consul-General at Zagreb and I also spoke with Mr. Dobson's father on the telephone.
On 6th June I raised the case with the Yugoslav Foreign Minister and with President Tito on the following day. Following these talks Mr. Dobson decided to address a petition for pardon to President Tito. This was made two days ago and I expect that Mr. Dobson will be released and allowed to return to this country very shortly.
I am sure that the whole House will share the relief of Mr. Dobson and his family at this outcome.

Sir J. Rodgers: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the prompt, effective and compassionate interest shown by the Foreign Office, and, in particular, by the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State, is much appreciated? Would he agree that the robust attitude of the British Press, local and national, and the broadcasting authorities, while the House was not sitting, strengthened his hand in these negotiations?
May I ask whether the free pardon granted by Marshal Tito while the sentence still remains will cause my constituent any embarrassment in applying for a visa to go abroad, particularly if he wishes to travel to the United States at any time?

Mr. Stewart: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for what he said in the first part of his question.
On the second part, I felt that my hands were strengthened by the reporting in several newspapers of the expressions

of feeling by the parents of those who were killed in the accident.
On the third part of his question, in view of the attitude adopted by the Yugoslav Government, it is, I think, unlikely that Mr. Dobson's freedom to travel abroad will be affected.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the thanks of the House, and, indeed, of the country, should be extended to President Tito himself, and that his attitude in this matter has borne comparison with the attitude of the Russian Government in the cases which have been referred to them?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I am glad to have the opportunity to say here what I have said elsewhere, that I believe President Tito acted generously, humanely and promptly. Both the Yugoslav Foreign Minister and President Tito listened courteously and carefully to my representations. I am glad that their response has been so satisfactory.

Mr. Goodhart: Following the satisfactory outcome of this case, will the right hon. Gentleman turn his attention to trying to secure the release of my constituent, Mr. Derek Fairhurst, who has been held in a primitive prison in Persia for two months following a traffic accident and, according to the Foreign Office, may have to remain there for three months more before the case comes to trial?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I have not neglected this case, but the hon. Member will realise that all these cases differ from one another. While it is the duty of the Foreign Office to do what is right for British subjects, the hon. Member must realise that we are not always as fortunate as in this case.

NIGERIA (CIVIL WAR)

Mr. Winnick: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's decision to begin talks with both sides in the Nigerian civil war in order to find a settlement.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have been asked to reply.
Her Majesty's Government were distressed that, despite the efforts of the Commonwealth Secretary-General and of the Government of Uganda, the peace talks at Kampala should have been suspended.
It has all along been the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support every endeavour to bring the Nigerian civil war to a negotiated conclusion so as to avoid further bloodshed, suffering and bitterness. In the new circumstances they have felt it right to take advantage of the presence in London of the leaders of the two negotiating teams, Chief Enahoro and Sir Louis Mbanefe to conduct informal exploratory talks with each.
The object is not to try to take over from Mr. Arnold Smith, to whose patient and skilful work we all pay tribute, but to see if we cannot help to smooth the path back to the conference table. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Shepherd saw Chief Enahoro on 7th June and Sir Louis Mbanefe last evening; he hopes to have further talks with each of them this evening.
The House will not expect me to discuss the details of these exploratory exchanges, but I must make it clear that no question of recognition is involved.
Our greatest interest in all this is that peace should be restored in Nigeria as soon as possible and I hope that the House will approve of the initiative which we are taking.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that he and the Government will have the good will and support of the entire House in trying to end the slaughter and to bring about a negotiated settlement? Is he aware of the depth of feeling in the country that arms supplied to the Nigerian Government should be cut off so that we should not be a party to the slaughter?
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in his opinion, since Biafra is now recognised by a number of African Governments, it is possible that the decision to recognise Biafra will have some influence on Russian policy to continue to supply the Nigerians with arms?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that I can answer for the Russian Government's policy. Nor do I think that the recognition of Biafra—by, I think, four countries—has materially affected the situation. I think that it is understood that it is the general aim of African countries that they should not be threatened by secession and possibly dissolution.
On the question of the supply of arms, I do indeed know the depth of feeling, but I am convinced that if we were to take the steps suggested by my hon. Friend now, certainly at this juncture above all, it would not in any way enable us to contribute more towards a settlement but might make it harder for us to play a useful part.

Mr. Maudling: We on this side of the House share the Government's desire to see peace in Nigeria. We certainly wish success to this new initiative, but may I press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the supply of arms? While fully appreciating the reasons behind Government policy up to date owing to the extremely difficult situation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will reconsider policy on this point, particularly now when the dangers of massive slaughter appear to be brooding over the scene?

Mr. Stewart: If we look at the situation as it now stands with this fresh possibility of getting talks started again, we have to remember that the suspension of talks at Kampala was brought about by Biafran action and that for us to take action now which would be hostile to the State prepared to go on with the talks would not, I think, help the situation.

Mr. David Steel: I welcome the statement made by the Foreign Secretary. Does it mark a change of policy from a year ago, when no Government would speak to Sir Louis Mbanefo when in London? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the statements made by Cardinal Heenan and the Church of Scotland on the growing disquiet about the supply of arms in this tragic situation?

Mr. Stewart: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the circumstances to which he referred of a year ago were not comparable to


those now. As I made clear, the fact that these talks are now to go on does not involve recognition. The main thread of the Government's policy throughout has been to seek a peaceful settlement with both sides, and that remains our policy.
I am aware of the expressions of feeling to which the hon. Member has referred, both from those quarters and from others, but I believe that the right answer is the one that I have already given.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will Her Majesty's Government now take the initiative in approaching the other Governments involved to stop the export of all arms to Nigeria, both from Government and private sources? Is he aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are distinctly puzzled by the Government's continual and persistent refusal to take this positive and normal procedure?

Mr. Stewart: We have said, and I want to reaffirm this, that if it were possible to get a cessation of arms supplies that would be agreeable to both sides in order to promote a settlement, we should be glad to consider that. What I felt it necessary to reject was a proposal that by our own action we should stop the supply of arms to the Federal military Government at this time.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the pressing issue of the supply of Red Cross material? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has said that this would be looked at by the Government. There is world pressure for this action. There is resistance to Red Cross supplies being landed. I am sure that the best contribution that we could make would be to insist on Red Cross material getting through.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary to look further into that. I understand that the Federal military Government have expressed their willingness to facilitate the supply of materials of this kind into Biafra.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will realise that all of us hope that these discussions will lead to a settlement. If they do not, I hope that he will bear in mind the experience of the Ibo people over the years since this trouble began. If there cannot be a cease-fire, will my right hon. Friend

realise that many of us feel that the Government would be under a moral obligation to work with other Governments to stop the supply of arms?

Mr. Stewart: I note very carefully what my right hon. Friend says, but he will agree that this question is hypothetical on attempts to reach a settlement being unsuccessful. I very much hope that hypothesis will not be realised.

Mr. Tilney: In addition to approaching all Western Governments as well as those of the Eastern bloc with a view to exerting the maximum pressure on both sides, would the Foreign Secretary offer British participation in a Commonwealth peace-keeping force so that the Ibos need not fear massacre and the federalists need not fear the build-up of arms against them?

Mr. Stewart: It might well be that a force of that kind could play a part in a final settlement, but the question of joint action with Governments outside the Commonwealth we should have to consider very carefully. We would probably be unwilling to consider joint action with Governments outside the Commonwealth that might have the effect of depriving a Commonwealth Government of a supply which normally it would get.

Mr. Paget: In view of the overwhelming evidence that the policy of the Nigerian Army is to slaughter men, women and children, can one say that the Biafrans are responsible for breaking off the talks when the condition of the talks was that authority should be handed over to that Nigerian Army?
Secondly, can one be on the side of the integrity of Nigeria, which, after all, is a colonial accident, when, before this war happened, 30,000 Ibos were slaughtered in other parts of Nigeria?

Mr. Stewart: On the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's question, I cannot accept the assumption of fact which he makes, and, in consequence, I cannot agree with his conclusion.
On the second part, I think that it should be noticed that there are living in territory held by the Federal military Government a considerable number of Ibo population unmolested. I know that there is a complex and unhappy history to this, but I do not believe that to deny


the integrity or existence of Nigeria would be the right way out of the problem.

Mr. Crouch: Has the Foreign Secretary sensed this afternoon the growing awareness of both sides of the House in recognising his determination to achieve peace between the two disputing sides in Nigeria? Is he also sensitive to the growing misunderstanding on both sides of the House at the Government's lack of strength in taking the initiative to stop sending supplies to one side? Will he not give an initiative to the other countries involved in the supply of arms?

Mr. Stewart: I have answered already, in reply to other hon. Members, both the points which the hon. Member has made. I am glad to feel that in his judgment we are attempting to reach a settlement, but I have given reasons, which, I think, are adequate, why the cutting-off of the supply of arms, particularly at this juncture, would not help to promote a settlement.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: While everyone wishes the Foreign Secretary well in his efforts to secure a settlement, if those efforts do not speedily succeed will he make a maximum effort to secure that all arms from all sources shall be stopped?

Mr. Stewart: I must make two points about that. First, this is a hypothetical question. Secondly, as I said in reply to an hon. Member opposite, I do not think that we should wish to take joint action with countries outside the Commonwealth to prevent the supply of arms to Commonwealth Governments.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Has the Foreign Secretary noted that Sweden has stopped sending arms to Nigeria? Surely he must be aware that the amount of arms going to the Federal Government completely outweighs the amount going to the other side? Will he take note of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have refused to supply arms to South Africa to carry out her obligations under the Simonstown Treaty, but do send arms where casualties are mounting every day?

Mr. Stewart: There is no parallel between these two cases. There is an extremely important difference, to mention

one, that in South Africa we are carrying out a resolution of the United Nations Security Council.

NIGERIA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the effect of allowing the supply of arms from Britain to Nigeria to continue now that the peace talks at Kampala have broken down.
The Kampala peace talks broke down at the beginning of the Whitsun weekend, just after the House had gone into recess, and this is, therefore, the first possible opportunity I have had to make this application.
The breakdown of the peace talks at Kampala comes at a time when the war is moving into a guerrilla stage, and, if it is now pursued to a military conclusion, there is no doubt that civilian casualties will be even heavier than they have been so far. Even though peace talks may take place in London, I understand that it has been made clear to Sir Louis Mbanefo, the Biafran negotiator, that the British Government still intend to continue the supply of arms to Nigeria.
But, most important of all, during the year or so that has now passed since Biafra declared itself independent, there has been no opportunity for Members of the House to debate the situation that has arisen between Nigeria and Biafra, and, especially, no opportunities to debate the controversial decision of the British Government to continue the supply of arms to Nigeria. It has only been possible to put Questions to Ministers.
Finally, there can be no doubt that there is mounting public anxiety at the continued supply of British arms to Nigeria, as has been evidenced by the editorial tone in many newspapers.
I therefore beg to suggest that the breakdown of the peace talks at Kampala is sufficient reason for the House to have an emergency debate on this controversial aspect of Government policy.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he intended to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the effect of allowing the supply of arms from Britain to Nigeria to continue now that the peace talks at Kampala have broken down.
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?

The leave of the House having been given—

Mr. Speaker: The Motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours. This is as provided for under the terms of the revised Standing Order No. 9 as agreed to by the House on 14th November, 1967.

The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

FINANCE BILL

3.54 p.m.

The purpose of this Motion is to provide for a Recommittal stage for discussion of the Finance Bill. Such a stage was envisaged by the Select Committee on Procedure and, I think, pressed for by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod).

In a few words, the case for a Recommittal stage is that it will give an opportunity to hon. Members who were not members of the Committee upstairs to raise points or move Amendments on the Floor of the House. To give the maximum time for this to be done, the Government do not propose to table any Amendments on Recommittal. Any Amendments that we have will be kept until Report. It may be that the Official Opposition will think that it would be helpful if they took the same approach.

The Government would thus be given the maximum opportunity to consider Amendments moved by hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee and, where these were acceptable in some form, it would still leave time for the Government to have them suitably prepared and accepted on Report.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: In the present situation, which we have opposed and on which we have made our views clear, I am sure that, in general, this proposal is for the convenience of the House and, therefore, we accept it.
I have only one point to raise, and, in large measure, it is one for the Leader of the House; and perhaps he will allow me to return to the matter during Business Questions on Thursday. It may be

that this Recommittal stage will come fairly swiftly—we do not know; I see no great need for hurry—but we have not seen the reprinted Bill. It will not be reported from the Committee until about midnight on Wednesday.
The point that I wish to put to the Leader of the House and the Financial Secretary is this. This is a new procedure and, therefore, there is nothing to guide us in the matter. The Financial Secretary seemed to indicate that he thought that the Recommittal stage should be almost exclusively a field-day for the eleven-twelfths of those hon. Members who were excluded from the Committee upstairs and that they should have their go at the Government with some hope, at least, that some of their Amendments might be accepted.
I take that point as far as it goes, but it would be a great mistake to try to exclude those right hon. and hon. Members who have been toiling over the Bill in Committee. Therefore, I do not go as far as the Financial Secretary in saying that the Official Opposition would not wish to table Amendments on the Recommittal stage; certainly we would.
A Recommittal stage is a good idea, and I take the point that it should be basically for those hon. Members who were unable to take part in the Committee stage. However, because time will be short, it is a matter of importance for the Leader of the House to make this clear to the House as soon as possible so that hon. Members who have not followed the flow of events upstairs may get their Amendments on the Notice Paper as soon as possible. It may be


that the Leader of the House can give me an interim reply now, and we might return to this on Thursday if, in fact, his announcement of next week's Business includes something about Recommittal of the Bill.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has made a fair point. Certainly, I will give him more details when I make my Business Statement on Thursday.
This Motion was tabled for the convenience of the House. I agree it should not inhibit even hon. Members of the Official Opposition from putting down Amendments. However, I have noted what the right hon. Member has said, and I will elaborate on this on Thursday.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — GAMING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: As is my custom, I have posted up a list of the Amendments which I have selected. The first one that I am calling is new Clause 1.

New Clause 1

RESTRICTIONS ON ADVERTISEMENTS RELATING TO GAMING

(1) Except as provided by this section, no person shall issue, or cause to be issued, any advertisement—

(a) informing the public that any premises in Great Britain specified in the advertisement are premises on which gaming takes place or is to take place, or
 (b) inviting the public to take part as players in any gaming which takes place, or is to take place, on any such premises, or to apply for information about facilities for taking part as players in any gaming which takes place, or is to take place, in Great Britain, or
 (c) inviting the public to subscribe any money or money's worth to be used in gaming whether in Great Britain or elsewhere, or to apply for information about facilities for subscribing any money or money's worth to be so used.

(2) The preceding subsection does not apply to any advertisement in so far as it relates to gaming which is, or is to be,—

 (a) gaming as an incident of an entertainment to which section 32 of this Act applies, or
 (b) gaming to which section 40 of this Act applies, or
 (c) gaming on any premises to which paragraph 4 of Schedule 9 to this Act applies and in respect of which a permit under section 33 of this Act is for the time being in force, or
 (d) gaming on any premises to which paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the Act of 1963 applies and in respect of which a permit under section 49 of that Act is for the time being in force, or
 (e) gaming at any travelling showmen's pleasure fair.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to—

 (a) the display, on any premises in respect of which a licence under this Act is for the time being in force, of a sign or notice indicating that gaming takes place, or is


to take place, on those premises, whether the sign or notice is displayed inside or outside the premises, or
(b) the publication or display of a notice, where the notice is required to be published or displayed by any provision of Schedules 2 to 4 to this Act and the publication or display is so made as to comply with the requirements of that provision, or
 (c) the publication in any newspaper of a notice stating that a licence under this Act has been granted, if the notice is published not later than fourteen days from the date on which the licence was granted and the notice is in a form approved by the licensing authority by whom the licence was granted; 
and, in the case of any premises in respect of which a club is for the time being registered under Part II or Part III of this Act, subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any advertisement by reason only that it contains the name of the club.

(4) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to the publication of an advertisement in a newspaper which circulates wholly or mainly outside Great Britain.

(5) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that he is a person whose business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements and that he received the advertisement in question for publication in the ordinary course of business and did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would amount to an offence under this section.

(6)For the purposes of this section an advertisement issued by displaying or exhibiting it shall be treated as issued on every day on which it is displayed or exhibited.

(7) Subject to subsection (5) of this section, any person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

 (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400;
 (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

(8) In this section 'advertisement' includes every form of advertising, whether in a publication or by the display of notices or by means of circulars or other documents or by an exhibition of photographs or a cinematograph film, or by way of sound broadcasting or television, and references to the issue of an advertisement shall be construed accordingly; and 'the public' means the public in Great Britain, and includes any section of the public in Great Britain, however selected —[Mr. Callaghan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With the new Clause we are taking the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), in line 35, at end insert:
'or,
(d) the publication in any newspaper of a notice containing the following and no other particulars namely the name and address of the club, that it is licensed for gaming, the native of the games played and the hours of play'.

Mr. Callaghan: The effect of the new Clause is to put back into the Bill a Clause which appeared originally and which was taken out in Committee by eight votes to seven, with one dubious vote being counted. It was a very close Division.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, who was in charge of the Bill, undertook before the vote that the Government would consider carefully what had been said by hon. Members in relation to the Clause, and I have done so.
I think that the House is entitleq to know why I ask it to put back the Clause in a slightly different form from that which was defeated in Committee. The purpose of the Clause is to restrict the advertising of gaming. There is a view to be taken here about whether the advertising of gaming is good or not. I, for, one, do not believe that it is, good, and I am in favour of restricting it as far as possible.
I think that is a specific social attitude that one can accept or reject. I tell the House quite frankly where I stand on the matter. I should explain the reasons why I ask the House to put back this Clause and, in the course of that explanation, to examine the reasons advanced against so doing.
First, the arguments in Committee were directed almost solely to the proposed restriction of advertisement by licensed clubs. But subsection (1) of this new Clause is a great deal wider than that, especially paragraph (c), which is designed to strike at the promotion of activities organised elsewhere. I quote as an example postal bingo, organised in the Isle of Man, which, frankly, takes the form of a lottery and, therefore, is not within the province we have been discussing.
Secondly, it strikes at gaming touts who invite people to subscribe money to the State on their behalf. Whatever may be said on behalf of permitting advertisement of postal bingo in the Isle of Man, there is little to be said for permitting advertising by gaming touts to invite people to subscribe money. Their claims often verge on the fraudulent. Their activities, in any case, are a highly undesirable form of propagating gaming. The measures taken against this abuse— and I use the word advisedly—fell foul of the Committee when it struck out the whole of the Clause, although there was no argument about it at that time. Therefore, I would like to put it back on those three grounds.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Does subsection (l)(c) make it a criminal offence to offer tickets in either the Irish Sweep or the Calcutta Sweep?

Mr. Callaghan: I should like to answer the question about criminal offences later, because I want to get some information about it. But what applies to the organisation of postal bingo in the Isle of Man would apply also to others of these matters, certainly.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I should like to get this clear. Subsection (l)(c) refers to gaming, not lotteries. I think that these are lotteries.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged. I am told that the right hon. Gentleman is right. These are lotteries. It applies to gaming, not lotteries.
The three arguments advanced in Committee were, first, that once the gaming clubs had been licensed and made honest and respectable there was no reason why they should not be allowed to advertise; secondly, that it was wrong to try to restrict advertisement of a single form of gambling whilst leaving others like betting in touch, although restricting advertising of such activities as strip tease; and, thirdly, that these restrictions can be evaded.
Let us take them one by one. First, that commercial gambling is to be licensed subject to strict conditions. That does not mean that we should assist its propagation. We are controlling it. We should try not merely to contain it, but to cut it back. To allow the clubs to advertise freely would be incompatible with that

approach which the Government have made during the course of the Bill. It would be incompatible with the requirement that, before a club can be licensed, there must be shown a substantial demand already existing for the facilities offered. There is little point if gaming activities are to be allowed to stimulate demand. I ask the House to take the view that we should not allow gaming clubs to persistently stimulate demand. This is an attitude and approach about which the House will have to make up its mind.
Secondly, it is erroneous to argue that all forms of gambling should be treated alike. Gaming is potentially the most dangerous of all forms of gambling. I say that for these reasons: first, that there is continuity of play; secondly, that there is rapidity of turnover; and, thirdly, that there is a prevalence of competitive staking. These things make gaming not only potentially, but actually, very dangerous indeed.
The advertising of betting is already restricted. Credit bookmakers can advertise, but betting offices may not. With the removal of the Clause gaming is now more leniently treated, which is surely the reverse of what anybody expected or intended. In any case, we cannot use the vehicle of this Bill to deal with other forms of gambling, let alone some of the arguments advanced in Committee about strip tease. We cannot wrap up everything in this Bill.—[Laughter.] That is a Freudian slip. It shows that I am not much of a strip teaser, I regret to say.
It is surely not a good argument to say that because one is unable to deal with a number of other abuses one should leave unchecked the one that can be dealt with. Therefore, I do not accept as particularly relevant the fact one should not restrict advertising because one cannot do it in some other sphere of activity.
On enforceability, a great deal was said in Committee about the fact that a determined gamer would find it possible to game in certain places and that clever people would find ways to advertise. A great deal of ingenuity was expended in Committee in discussing this matter. I think that some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Gentlemen opposite have a good living to make should they decide to leave the House and go in for devising ingenious advertising campaigns, for


gambling. Although I do not pretend that one can prevent news or feature items appearing in the Press, or that astute public relations officers for the gaming clubs will not be able to get newsworthy items publicised, we come back to the simple point in the end: is it not worth trying to restrict advertising by putting in these prohibitions? My answer is, "Yes".
The Clause is not seeking an absolute or impossible object. It is not relevant to criticise it as though it were. The object is none the less valuable because it is limited. To abandon these provisions would prejudice the whole policy of restraining commercial gambling. To permit the free advertising of gaming would be contrary to what underlies the Bill.
I said that there was one amendment to the Clause as originally devised to which I should draw the attention of the House. That was the penalty provision in subsection (7), which was raised in Committee two or three times. The liability to imprisonment on summary conviction has been removed. That is consistent with similar changes made by the Committee elsewhere in the Bill—for example, in Clause 8(4), where there is the alternative of proceeding on indictment. The view has been taken that the authorities should resort to that alternative where imprisonment is sought. Apart from that, the Clause is as originally placed before the Committee.
I believe the Clause to be right for the reasons I have given and I invite the House to reverse the decision taken by eight votes to seven. This is an attempt, which I believe will be much more successful than some of my ingenious hon. Friends believe, to prevent advertising of gaming which it is socially desirable to restrict. Therefore, I ask the House to restore the Clause.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) may be discussed with this Motion.

Mr. Antony Buck: On a point of guidance. Is the position that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet

(Mr. Rees-Davies) can be discussed, and at a later stage, if that Amendment were to be moved, there would be an opportunity to vote upon it?

Mr. Speaker: The difficulty is that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet is not here to move it. It stands in the name of one hon. Member.

Mr. Buck: I understand that it can be moved.

Mr. Speaker: I am advised that it can be moved. It has not, however, been selected for a Division.

Mr. Buck: Do I understand that at this stage the Amendment has been selected for discussion, but not for Division? Is that the position?

Mr. Speaker: If am hon. Gentleman feels very keenly about an Amendment which is not selected for Division it is open to him to make representations to the Chair. The Chair will take note of them, but does not always accept them.

Mr. Buck: I will see that such representations are made to you, Mr. Speaker, perhaps during the course of my remarks on the new Clause just moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.
I express myself disappointed that the Government should have sought to restore this Clause, relating to advertising, which was removed by the Committee. I believe that during the Committee deliberations no fewer than 11 members of the Committee spoke on this whole question of whether or not there should be a ban on advertising; and all the 11 whom I counted spoke more or less against the whole tenor of this ban. I must express my disappointment that the Government should have chosen, without any Amendment, merely to seek to restore this provision at this stage.
There is a variety of reasons why we on this side oppose this ban on advertising. The Home Secretary himself has dealt with some of them. First, I feel that we should be extremely chary of passing prohibitive legislation. As a rule, we do not like such legislation. We should pass Clauses which are prohibitive in character only if there is the clearest need for such provisions and


they are to fulfil a real purpose. Apparently, the real purpose of the Government's Clause is, as expressed by the then Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, to control the total level of and demand for activities relevant to gaming.
That is what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, but so far as I am aware there is no evidence that a ban on advertising will be effective for that purpose. The Home Secretary may recall that some of my hon. Friends drew attention to the position that has arisen relative to certain restrictions on the advertising of cigarettes, and so forth. In my submission, there is no scientific evidence to support this prohibitive legislation which we are being asked to pass today.
In any event, a ban on the advertising of casinos and bingo halls makes no sense, in my view, when it is permissible to advertise pools and similar forms of activity. It makes even less sense when one considers, as we understand, that the Government are adopting an attitude of sympathy towards a national lottery. If they are seeking to calm down and diminish the activity and the amount of money involved in this kind of sphere, it seems illogical that they, should be putting their weight behind a Bill which inevitably will cause a very great increase in this kind of gaming or lottery activity.
If the Government are to support a national lottery they will have to back it up by advertising and we shall have the absurd and anomalous position that the Government will be advertising activities of a similar character to those we are here considering, while the bingo hall will not be allowed to advertise the modest facilities it provides. This does not seem to make very great sense.
We should be chary of passing a prohibitive law of this character, a law which does not, in effect, accord with common sense. It does not accord with common sense for us to ban the advertising of bingo halls and casinos and to allow that advertising on pools betting and other activities of that type.
Similarly, under the actual provisions of the Clause apparently it will be permissible for the full extent of gaming activities and the facilities available in this country to be advertised abroad. That seems something of a nonsense. In

New York, for example, one will be able to read in a publication about the Playboy Club and the various casinos which are available in London, but similar information will not be available to the tourist when he comes to this country. Once again, that makes a nonsense. That is the effect of the Clause as it is at present framed.
The Home Secretary dealt with the matter I raised in Committee relative to the types of advertising which are permitted. Again, it seems illogical not to permit the advertising of casinos and bingo halls when one can and does find advertisements for four hours of non-stop strip-tease cabaret. That is to continue to be permitted whereas we are not to be allowed to read of any advertisement telling us of a modest family game, as the Home Secretary would have us believe it is, of bingo. That, again, seems to be a nonsense.
The whole absurdity comes into fuller perspective when we consider it in the context of the whole purpose of the Bill. The Home Secretary dealt with that, but in my view he did so unsatisfactorily. The whole purpose of the legislation we are considering today is to regulate gaming and especially to eliminate clubs which might form a foundation of criminal enterprises, and to eliminate clubs which cheat or defraud. All of us, on both sides of the House, hope that that purpose will be fulfilled and that we shall have in this country gaming clubs and bingo halls of the very highest standards —and only those of the very highest standards; that we shall ensure that the people who get licences have the highest bona fides, and that the actual clubs are well run and the premises are satisfactory.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the Clause.

Mr. Buck: I shall return to it in the next sentence, Mr. Speaker.
If we seek to ensure that those places are of that high standard how absurd it is that they should not be able even to tell the public about their very existence. It seems to me that this highlights the absurdity. If we have confidence, as I have, that legislation may be successful and that we shall have a small number


of good quality establishments of high standard then those should certainly be allowed to advertise. In any event, they should certainly be allowed to advertise within the limits delineated by the Amendment we are able to discuss put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), namely, that those club, casino and bingo hall owners should be able to publish newspaper notices containing the bare facts of the name and address of the club, the character of the licence and the actual games to be played on the premises. Surely, that should be permitted.
I would hope that in reply to the debate on the whole question of advertising we shall hear, either from the Home Secretary or the Parliamentary Secretary, why they oppose this—if, in fact, they do; because a limitation on advertising of this character would seem to me to make advertising entirely unexceptionable, even on the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary. I trust I shall be in order in raising this point, but I shall be interested to hear why the Home Secretary takes the view that bingo is, in this instance, in the same category as hard gaming. The arguments of the Home Secretary on the compulsive nature of gaming, and so forth, seem to apply only to hard gaming and not, in my opinion, to bingo. I would like to hear why the Minister feels, if, indeed he does, that bingo should be put in the same category as hard gaming for the purposes of advertising.
There are many matters of detail which were dealt with in Committee, and no doubt my hon. Friends will wish to discuss them today, with regard to the drafting of the Clause which, I think, presents great difficulties. Has the Minister had consultations with those who operate the local Press throughout the country? Has he discussed with them the difficulties referred to in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)? Has he considered the sort of difficulties which arise when there is a mixture of editorial comment and advertisement? I hope that the matter has been investigated, because I think that the Clause as drafted will give rise to real difficulties in that respect.
If the Government suppose that by enacting the Clause Parliament will do

good, they are asses. What is more important, we shall pass a law which in the words of a Dickens' character is liable to make the law look an ass. It will be unenforceable. It is an undesirable Clause. It is based on an inappropriate philosophy, and I hope that today we shall follow the procedure adopted in Committee and have no ban on advertising relating to any of these matters. I hope that we shall reject the new Clause.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I voted for the Clause in Committee, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is proposing to restore it to the Bill today. It is essential to the Bill, one of whose objects is to control gaming, and the other to contain it. It would be utter folly to introduce a Bill to contain gambling, and then to allow the unrestricted advertisement of gaming clubs.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) realises the effective power of advertising. If advertising takes place on a large scale, the power of the advertiser to attract people to gaming clubs is enormous. We are restricting the number of clubs, and we shall, therefore, be giving people a licence to print money if we allow unlimited advertising. The difference between the present position and the position as it will be when the Bill becomes law is that then there will be a restricted smaller number of licensed clubs, and if we allow unrestricted advertising for these clubs they will have an enormous power to attract people to them.
Although the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) restricts the content of the advertisements, it does not restrict their size, and a full-page advertisement in a newspaper, even though it contained only the bare facts which the hon. Gentleman would allow, could be a powerful stimulus to attracting people to that club, or to other gaming clubs.
The other argument which the hon. Member for Colchester advanced today, and which he put forward in Committee, is that the Clause will be ineffective and that the Government are asses if they proceed with it. They may be, but they are following in the path of other asses. They are following the path of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who, in 1963, introduced a similar Clause in respect of


betting shops, but which has proved satisfactory in practice. All the ways round the Clause which were mentioned in Committee, and which have been mentioned in passing today, were not adopted in respect of the 1963 Act. There was no attempt at a massive evasion of the section which prevented the advertising of betting shops. It is, therefore, erroneous of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and of some of my hon. Friends, to think that the Clause will be ineffective.
I supported the Clause upstairs, and I support it here. It is an essential part of the Bill, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is proposing to bring it back.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I appreciate the Home Secretary's motives. He wants to reduce the totality of gaming. He feels that if advertising is allowed to be free and plentiful it will have an adverse effect. I see the evil which he has in mind, but I think that greater evils will arise if advertising is prohibited.
In spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), I remain convinced that the Clause will not work. I am not strongly in favour of paternalism in any form, but ineffective paternalism is the worst of all worlds. The Clause will not work for two important reasons. First, the inconsistencies to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) referred are too glaring. Too much advertising on similar lines is permitted now, and in the eyes of reasonable people this prohibition will seem absurd.
The second reason why it will not work is that there are too many ways in which it can be evaded. When we put forward this argument in Committee, we did so not with a view to obstructing what the Home Office had in mind. I know half a dozen ways in which local newspapers will find their normal run of business in difficulties. Many local newspapers run full-page features which are part-editorial and part-advertisement. It is very difficult to tell who is paying for what, but it is an accepted form of local journalism. I think that it will continue in this style and form, with a certain amount of surreptitious evasion taking place.
I wish that a distinction could be made between gaming clubs and bingo halls, because it is bingo which interests the largest number of people, and they have

a right to know where the entertainment which they pursue, rightly or wrongly, is to be held. For this reason, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has a point in wishing to restrict the advertisement to information and not to the seductive need which troubles the Home Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that he aims to reduce gaming, but there is another object behind the Bill. We are trying to straighten out this business. We are trying not only to reduce the totality, but to make the whole business sound and look straighter than it has been. If we are to encourage the straight dealers, and discourage the others, it is an ill start to put into the Bill something which will encourage the fly dealer to do something to get round what Parliament has proposed. I am convinced that this will result in a rich harvest for the lawyers. Innumerable borderline cases will be brought forward. I want to see the Bill work, just as much as the Home Secretary does, but we shall finish up with cheating, and this is what I find objectionable.
I remember the era of Radio Luxembourg which, between the wars, managed to do a number of things which we did not manage to have done. I do not say that that era will recur, but there are other ways of doing what was done then, and I think that they will be adopted.
Obviously, the Home Secretary is not going to think again. We should, therefore, stick to our guns and do what we did in Committee and reject the Clause.

Mr. Paget: I, too, was wondering about Radio Luxembourg and similar institutions. Can one prevent that form of advertising? Is not one progressively getting to the situation in which there is less and less advertising that can be controlled?
My attitude is that this is a good Bill. I think that it is irresponsible to try to put on the Government, who have to run the Bill, things which they do not want, or to take from them things which they do want. I voted against the Clause in Committee because I thought that it was extremely silly and required further consideration. I then said, and I shall stand by it, that, if the Government brought the Clause back again after further consideration, I would support them on the


general principle, but I do so on the principle and not because I am convinced in detail.
4.30 p.m.
Among the difficulties of our gambling law which have plagued us for years are the flagrant anomalies. We cannot get public opinion behind a law which is manifestly absurd. A man could go into a town for business with nothing to do in the evenings and find greyhound racing, which is no more than an animated roulette wheel, and horse racing, two forms of less controlled gambling, advertised freely, but it would be wrong for him to be told where he could spend the evening playing a little quiet bingo. That shows how absurd the position is.
If we are trying to take gambling out of the muddle which has plagued it for a century and to ensure that the general public are behind the law as a reasonable method, we need at least an enforceable and understandable law. Suppose that I advertised, the "Crockford's Club is having a gala evening and here is the menu". Would I be informing the public that these were premises "upon which gambling takes place"? Not in the advertisement, but everyone who remotely wished to gamble would know it. If one called clubs in the provinces "Crockford's", or any other known gambling name, and advertised their floor show, menu or entertainment, one would walk straight through the Clause because that would not be prohibited.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) said that the prohibition of advertising of betting shops was more successful. I disagree with him; I think that it has totally failed. Corral's, Hills and all those who own these shops advertise, and since they advertise the name, they effectually advertise every shop bearing their name. The advertising of those shops goes on, effectively, all the time. The same sort of thing will happen in this case.
I am not convinced by the argument. We would be better without the Clause, but, nevertheless, the Government must run this, and if they think that it is necessary, having reconsidered it, I will not say them nay.

Sir Stephen McAdden: I was delighted when the Committee

decided to delete the Clause and I am disappointed that, after consideration, the Home Secretary proposes to put it back. I thought that the arguments against it were conclusive. He said that his intention is to confine gambling and that that is why he does not want it to be advertised. If he wants to control and sanctify it with the odour of legality, why does he want to keep quiet about it? If this legislation will produce a purified creature and remove some of the odium from gambling, why should we not know where it takes place? Why should we have to search the proceedings of the courts to know who has been given a license before we can know where to go to play? Surely this is expecting too much of the public.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he will prevent people from knowing where gambling goes on by restricting advertising? Surely he knows that Rank, Mecca and others run bingo. Will it be wrong for them to put an advertisement in the paper saying, "Rank, from 10 to 12"? Is that advertising gaming or not? How will he prevent organisations whose names are associated with a particular form of gambling from advertising their names so long as they do not mention that they will be gaming on the premises, and simply advertise their building? I do not see how he will prevent advertising at all.
What will happen to such publications as "What's On in London", which are filled with advertisements about gaming? Can we not have a modest advertisement so that those who want to indulge in bingo or hard gaming can know where it is available? In the barbers' shop in this building, the right hon. Gentleman will find many copies of this magazine which will tell him what is going on in London. I am sure that life is much more respectable in Cardiff in relation to these vices, but in London they exist and are advertised and we must not try to apply the standards of Cardiff to the great cities where these things take place and people want to know where.
What is wrong with advertising the places and the times at which these activities go on? Why should not a newspaper publish an advertisement containing the name and address of a club which is licensed for gaming, and the nature of the games played, and so on? Why should


people not have this information if they want it?

Mr. David Weitzman: I am sorry that the Government have brought back this Clause, which I voted against in Committee. I regarded it from two points of view—that it was hypocritical and that it would be easy to drive a coach and four through it. I pictured a person who wanted to gamble walking the streets of London looking at the signs on doors and then being able to enter. I said that it was hypocrisy because my right hon. Friend, in referring to criticism that other forms of gambling were allowed to advertise, said that that was no argument. against the subject which we were then dealing with. But it is absurd.
The pools and the betting shops openly advertise, yet the Government now say that a Casino and a gaming establishment should not be allowed to put one word of an advertisement in a paper. Why not? What effect will it have? This is sheer hypocrisy by the Government and will prevent no one who wants to gamble from doing so. This long Clause, so carefully drawn up, can be so easily evaded, with notices outside, and so on. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown how absurd this is by pointing out that one can advertise as much as one likes in foreign newspapers. No doubt we want tourists to indulge in gaming. No doubt that is why we will allow these forms of gaming to be advertised abroad. Is this not hypocrisy?
The object of the Bill is commendable in its desire to restrict the number of gaming establishments. Before an application comes to a licensing authority the people who intend to run such an establishment will be vetted. They will then be charged heavy registration fees and their takings will be heavily taxed. All this will be done to restrict the number of establishments and everything will be wonderfully respectable. Now the Government are going a step further and are saying, "We must be careful to protect the innocent and gullible public by preventing them from hearing about these establishments in advertisements." This is ridiculous.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Hon. Members have pointed out the com-

monsense and practical reasons why the new Clause should not be introduced. There is a Parliamentary point to consider here, which is that certain tests should be passed by the Government before the decision of a House of Commons Committee is overruled. To begin with, the Government should show that they have new arguments to support a Committee's decision being negatived. The Home Secretary has not adduced any new arguments to justify the reintroduction of this provision.
It is a different matter if there has been a manoeuvre in Committee to secure an Opposition majority; for example, by Government supporters being locked out of the Committee room. In those circumstances, the Government would be justified to use their majority at a later stage to put the matter right. There is something to be said for reintroducing a provision deleted in Committee if the argument has been all one-sided, so that the question under consideration has become a party point. That cannot be said in this case.
This provision was discussed in great detail by hon. Members of both sides of the Committee. While they were poles apart politically, common sense led them to take the right course, reflecting the view of the country. They considered that a provision of this sort was neither sensible nor practicable. The Home Secretary should now have stronger arguments to negative that decision and he should certainly not proceed merely in the knowledge that he has a majority at his command.
In Committee, hon. Members crossed the "t"s and dotted the "i"s of every line in the Bill and, in addition to making other changes, removed this provision. The right hon. Gentleman is now reintroducing it in the knowledge that he can command the support of his supporters, the majority of whom were not members of the Committee. They will, therefore, be voting for him and the right hon. Gentleman will be relying on uninformed support. Perhaps this is why we are sometimes called Lobby fodder. It is sad that the standing of Parliament should be denigrated in this way. I trust that the good name of Parliament will be maintained and that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that back benchers are of value. Unless he can produce


new arguments to show why this provision should be reinstated, he should not negative such an important Commitmittee decision.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has reintroduced this provision. I see no reason why we should regard it as hypocritical to try to limit the commercial exploitation of gaming. I accept that how far we can achieve this may be challenged, but any step that we can take towards bringing about this limitation is to be welcomed, particularly in the present atmosphere of the country.
Hon. Gentleman opposite answered their own question. When they have referred to the amount of commercial advertising, of premises for this purpose and how every effort is made to increase the number of people who make use of these facilities, they have explained precisely what we want to limit. This is not a question of prohibiting, but of limiting the knowledge of some of these practices.
I also fully agree with those who say that bingo should be included in the provision. Bingo on its present commercial scale is very different from what hon. Gentlemen opposite have described it as. Anyone who has visited a major commercial bingo establishment must regard it as an operation providing anything but a quiet little game of bingo. Bingo, in its modern form, is a highly commercialised and greatly exploited type of gaming. I see no reason why it should be excluded from the provision. It is becoming another form of drug addiction. Hon. Members who are concerned with drug addiction must welcome the reintroduction of this provision. It is not hypocritical. It is a small but useful provision which should be in the Bill.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I could not agree less with the hon. Members for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). The remarks about a homely, family affair which my hon. Friends have used in relation to bingo were first used by the Home Secretary when speaking about bingo on the introduction of the Bill. The comments of hon. Gentlemen

opposite come ill when one considers that they are members of a party which is introducing a national lottery.

Mr. Callaghan: Despite the somewhat unusual doctrine from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), I urge the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) to be clear about this. The voting in Committee was eight to seven. If that is not a case for asking the House of Commons to reconsider something, I do not know what is.

Mr. Kitson: We improved the Bill a great deal in Committee. To reintroduce this provision is a terrible mistake. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that it will provide people with an opportunity to tout games of cards, bingo, chemin de fer, and so on? They will be able to say, "I know where you can have a game of cards tonight", because operators will not be able to advertise and people will not know where the establishments are.
Therefore, people who want a game will get into the hands of an individual who takes them to a basement for a game of chemin de fer, or roulette, which is completely uncontrolled, an illegal game that is not operated by the Gaming Board, because they do not know where the devil to go.
Here we are cleaning up gaming, making it quite respectable, and then inserting a Clause in the Bill which will help to drive it underground. I know that that is the last thing the Home Secretary wants, but he is creating that opportunity for those who want to take it underground. We all know that the Clause will not work. Touts will be able to take advantage of the situation. The larger organisations will have advantages over the smaller ones, because Mecca and Rank just have to show their name for people to know what is going on. The small bingo hall will not be in a position to compete with the better known organisations.
We discussed at great length in Committee methods of getting round advertising restrictions. I told the Committee how cigarette manufacturers get round them by running races which are shown on television where their names appear. The larger organisations will be able to do this while the smaller organisations will not. It will not be possible to operate


what the Home Secretary intends to do. The Clause may give an opportunity for touts to try to run games of cards underground, which none of us want to see when we have succeeded in producing a Bill which has gone a long way to clear up gaming.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Like almost every other hon. Member who has spoken in the debate, I very much regret the Home Secretary's decision to bring back the Clause. In speaking very briefly on it, I wish also to move formally the Amendment in the name of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we dispose of the new Clause.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the appropriate time it will be the Opposition's intention to do that, since I understand that Mr. Speaker has intimated that if that is done he will allow a separate Division on it.
We must consider the Clause in the whole context of what we are trying to do in the Bill, which sets out to allow gaming and bingo to take place in this country provided the premises used are properly controlled. That aim is accepted by both sides of the House, and, therefore, I entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) when he said that to have that as the aim and then to prevent advertising of any kind is pure hypocrisy. What is really said in the Clause is that we are producing a Bill which accepts gaming as a lawful activity, but that whatever one does one must not mention that it exists in this country. This is hypocritical. It will not work, and it is not justified.
How does one justify the prohibition of any form of advertising gaming, of bingo in particular, when the pools and racing openly advertise? It cannot be said that we are tempting people to take part for vast stakes, to gamble with the chance of winning vast sums. The amounts of money won on bingo, for example, nowhere near compete with the amounts won on the pools, which we see regularly advertised in the newspapers. How does this fit in even with the advertising of Premium Bonds, with a possible first prize of £25,000, or the advertising, as we

assume that it will be advertised, of the national lottery which the Government say they propose to recommend to the House?
Therefore, I do not believe that there is any justification on the basis of the background of the Bill and the permission we give to the advertising of other forms of gambling to prevent advertising, certainly of bingo, and, on principle, there is no basis for preventing advertising of hard gaming.
I wish to refer particularly to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). One would be foolish not to accept that the Home Secretary had some argument when he said that we did not want to encourage by seductive advertisements people to rush into gambling. But that cannot apply to an advertisement which merely states the name, address and the opening hours of clubs which we are permitting to exist. The Clause specifically allows for the advertising of the name but apparently not the address. I assume that this means that if one goes to Blackpool on holiday one can see a large advertisement in the newspaper saying something like "Rank in town", but unfortunately it cannot tell you where the Rank premises are. That is absolute nonsense.
With respect to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), the Government have made considerable concessions in favour of bingo throughout the Bill in Committee. The Home Secretary has said that bingo is a harmless family game. The Government have permitted multiple membership of bingo clubs so that if one belongs to Rank, Mecca, Granada or whatever it may be in one town one is entitled to play bingo at that company's club at a seaside resort without rejoining when one goes on holiday. What is the justification for saying that one can announce its existence but not the address of its premises? Equally, as regards casinos, if one can say, "Crockford's are here", or words to that effect, why cannot one give its address? My hon. Friend's Amendment sets out reasonably the type of information which should be permitted to be given without encouraging people to rush to gambling.
Where does the telephone directory stand? What about "What's On In


London"? If one can advertise every other form of club in London why cannot one advertise the address of a bingo club or casino? I do not believe that restrictions of this kind are in any way justified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) said that to negative a Committee decision was an important matter. I remind the Home Secretary of a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in Committee which I think was accepted by the then Under-Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend said that it was not so much a Committee as a working party of both sides of the House trying to improve the Bill.
I suggest that it had three objects in mind: First, that gaming must be accepted as here and be permitted; secondly, that it should be strictly controlled; thirdly, that we should produce a Bill that is workable. I believe that part of succeeding in that end was the removal of what was then Clause 39, and I regret very much that the Home Secretary is now attempting to bring it back at this stage.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: Often when I listen to arguments about a Clause I am supporting, I feel, "They are very good. Perhaps I was not right after all." But I have had the reverse feeling about the arguments made today against this Clause. The voting was eight to seven in Committee. It was fairly evenly balanced. All I can say now is that, if those who support advertising for gaming cannot put up better arguments than those they have put up today, I still feel I am right. It seemed to me that they were standing on so many different legs that it was almost impossible to trip them up. If one deals with one argument, they slide off on to another.
First, we had the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) telling us that the innocent citizen who goes for a quiet game of cards will find himself lured into a subterranean den, where, amidst lowered lights, he will find himself playing an illegal game because he will not know where to find a legal game. Then the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said that everyone will

know about it and it makes no difference. Both cannot be right.

Mr. Kitson: The point I was making was that, if a man wants a game of cards, and does not know where to get one, he may go somewhere which is not licensed. After all, there are many places in the country where one can get a drink after hours. It is the same thing.

Mr. Cailaghan: The hon. Gentleman is only repeating his argument. He has not added anything to it. Either everyone will know or they will not know. I take the view which, in other circumstances, I think most hon. Members would take—that advertising is a very potent weapon. People put large sums of money into it because they believe that it will bring them a return. I assume that to be true in gaming as it is true in advertising for things like Daz, or chocolate, or anything else. That being so, the only intention of advertising for gaming is to increase the number of people who game. If that is not the intention, I do not know what we are arguing about.
The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has played a notable part in our proceedings. I acknowledge that he and his hon. Friends have helped the Government on the Bill very much, just as my hon. Friends have. This has not been a party matter—I agree with him there. But the Bill has twin objectives and he only named one.
One of these objectives was to clean up gaming, but the second was to contain it. Perhaps that is not as important, but it is important. I take a social attitude on this matter. I believe that it is wrong for the House of Commons to encourage gaming. We may have to regulate it and try to straighten it out, but we should not encourage it by permitting advertising on a large and uncontrolled scale. That is my view. That is where I stand and that it what I believe.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney North (Mr. Weitzman) said that we want people to come here from abroad and that is why we permit advertising overseas. But I do not want anyone to come here just to game. I would not care if a tourist never came again if all he wanted to come for was to game. I


would not attempt to try to restrain anyone in this country from advertising abroad, whether in New York newspapers or anywhere else, but because I make no attempt to control advertising in foreign newspapers—it would be a fruitless attempt, anyway—we should not conclude from that that I should not seek, ill possible, to restrain advertising in British newspapers.

Mr. Weitzman: What is the purpose of permitting advertising abroad specifically?

Mr. Callaghan: I thought that I had answered that. My hon. and learned Friend is already arguing that I shall find it difficult to control advertising here. I do not want to take on the labours of Sisyphus. I would find it even more difficult to attempt to restrain advertising abroad. I do not want people to come here in order to gamble. Advertising will increase the knowledge of and the number of people who are likely to come here gaming. That, in my view, is not a good thing socially.
The right hon. Member for Ashford says that gaming club proprietors would cheat—that was his word. Perhaps they will. If they do it will be because they think they are going to get material advantage out of it, because they think that they will be able to lure more people into gaming than they would do otherwise. I hope that they will not cheat. I agree that ingenious persons might try to get round this Clause, but I ask all gaming clubs to observe the spirit in which this Clause is being put on the Statute Book —that advertising of gaming is not regarded as socially desirable by Parliament. That is a simple stand. Whatever some clever people may cheat about, I believe that the great majority of gaming club proprietors will accept the Clause and will not attempt to evade it.

Mr. Deedes: It is wrong to imply that those who get round the Clause will necessarily be cheating. If, for example —and his would be legitimate under subsection (4)—every gambling club in London decided to take a full-page advertisement in Life, how would the Home Secretary react? It would be a legitimate and effective step.

Mr. Callaghan: They could do it.

Mr. Deedes: It would not be cheating.

Mr. Callaghan: No, it would not be cheating, but it would be opposed to the spirit of this debate.
I think that a social attitude should be taken here. There are many things lawful, but not desirable. As the right hon. Gentleman and I agreed this morning, we cannot legislate to make people good but there is no reason why Parliament should not take a stand on an issue of this sort. I am asking Parliament to insert a Clause which, whatever its defects, says that we do not believe that encouraging people to game by advertising on a substantial scale is socially desirable. That is what I am arguing and that is what I stand by; and I am unshaken in my attitude.
I turn now to why we should not allow gaming club proprietors to state the name and address and nature of their games and the hours of play. I can only state my view. I do not think that it is a good thing that these things should be constantly held before the public gaze. I hope that, after this Bill becomes law, a lot of the publicity will subside. I hope that there will not be as much publicity of gaming as there has been. Gaming is not a socially desirable way of spending leisure. Therefore, I do not accept the view that it would be a good thing to keep the club addresses, the games they play, their prizes and hours, before the public view. This is why I recommend the House to accept the new Clause, which will undoubtedly put prohibitions on advertising. I hope that, by this means, we shall be able to limit and curb the desire of those who do not now indulge in gaming to do so. If that is done, and they do not take part in gaming, it will be socially more healthy for the country.

Mr. Buck: Why does the Home Secretary suggest that all his arguments apply with equal force to bingo, which in other spheres he has sought to regard—I think rightly—as very different from hard gaming?

Mr. Callaghan: The Government have made concessions on gaming which go a little further than the family game I spoke about on Second Reading. In so far as it is a local game—and bingo is


very much a local game—I know of no one in the areas affected who does not know where the local bingo hall is. Therefore, I do not think that we need get ourselves into contortions about permitting advertisements for bingo which we do not permit for any other game.

Lieut-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: The Home Sectary talks in a rather high falutin' way about the House deciding, giving the

impression that everyone in the House votes in the way his heart and conscience wishes. Nothing of the sort. It is the Socialist Party which decides, and the Whips are put on to see that hon. Members opposite do what they are told—or else.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 143.

Division No. 208.]
AYES
[5.12 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Alldritt, Walter
Freeson, Reginald
Moyle, Roland


Anderson, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer
Newens, Stan


Archer, Peter
Garrett, w. E.
Norwood, Christopher


Armstrong, Ernest
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Oakes, Gordon


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ogden, Eric


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
O'Malley, Brian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Orme, Stanley


Barnes, Michael
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Joel
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Owen, Or. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Baxter, William
Hamling, William
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bence, Cyril
Hannan, William
Paget, R. T.


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Binns, John
Haseldine, Norman
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bishop, E. S.
Hattersley, Roy
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Blackburn, F.
Heffer, Eric S.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pavitt, Laurence


Boston, Terence
Hooley, Frank
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Boyden, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Probert, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Randall, Harry


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Rankin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rees, Merlyn


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Kenyon, Clifford
Richard, Ivor


Chapman, Donald
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coe, Denis
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Concannon, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lipton, Marcus
Rose, Paul


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt, Hn. William


Dalyell, Tam
Loughlin, Charles
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Luard, Evan
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McBride, Neil
Short,Mrs.Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacColl, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
MacDermot, Niall
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Slater, Joseph


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McGuire, Michael
Small, William


Dickens, James
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Snow, Julian


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Mackintosh, John P.
Stonehouse, John


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Symonds, J. B.


Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taverne, Dick


Ellis, John
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Tinn, James


English, Michael
Manuel, Archie
Urwin, T. W.


Ennals, David
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


Ensor, David
Marquand, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wallace, George


Evans, loan L. (Brim'h'm, Yardley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Faulds, Andrew
Mikardo, Ian
Watklns, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilkins, W. A.


Forrester, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick




Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Winnick, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Charles Grey.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant, Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Astor, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey


Awdry, Daniel
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nott, John


Bell, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley


Biffen, John
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Higgins, Terence L.
Peyton, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hiley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Burden, F. A.
Hooson, Emlyn
Pym, Francis


Carlisle, Mark
Hordern, Peter
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornby, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony


Corfield, F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Crouch, David
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Joplin, Michael
Speed, Keith


Currie, G. B. H.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stainton, Keith


Dance, James
Kershaw, Anthony
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col Sir M. (Ripon)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lane, David
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow.Cathcart)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F, (Ashford)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Temple, John M.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tilney, John


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, W. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lubbock, Eric
van Straubenzee, W. N.


Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Emery, Peter
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wall, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
Ward, Dame Irene


Eyre, Reginald
Maginnis, John E.
Weatherill, Bernard


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus
Webster, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilton, Geoffrey (Truro)


Foster, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Worsley, Marcus


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)



Glyn, Sir Richard
Miscampbell, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan Geraint (Denbigh)
Mr. Jasper More and


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Hector Monro.

Amendment proposed: At end of subsection 3(c) insert:
or,
(d) the publication in any newspaper of a notice containing the following and no other particulars namely the name and address of the club, that it is licensed for gaming, the

nature of the games played and the hours of play.'—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 196.

Division No. 209.]
AYES
[5.20 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)


Astor, John
Burden, F. A.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Carlisle, Mark
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Awdry, Daniel
Cary, Sir Robert
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Clark, Henry
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Balniel, Lord
Clegg, Walter
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Bell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert
Drayson, G. B.


Biffen, John
Cortield, F. V.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Black, Sir Cyril
Costain, A. P.
Eden, Sir John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crouch, David
Emery, Peter


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Errington, Sir Eric


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Coi.SirWalter
Currie, G. B. H.
Fisher, Nigel


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dance, dames
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles




Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Foster, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pym, Francis


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Glyn, Sir Richard
Lloyd Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Goodhew, Victor
Loveys, W. H.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Gower, Raymond
Lubbock, Eric
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Grant, Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Royle, Anthony


Gresham Cooke, R.
MacArthur, Ian
Russell, Sir Ronald


Grieve, Percy
Mackenzic, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Macleod Rt. Hn. Iain
Sharples, Richard


Gurden, Harold
McMaster, Stanley
Shaw Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maginnis, John E.
Silvester, Frederick


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Mawby, Ray
Speed, Keith


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stainton, Keith


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Peter


Hiley, Joseph
More, Jasper
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hooson, Emlyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Temple, John M.


Hordern, Peter
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Tilney, John


Hornby, Richard
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Neave, Airey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hunt, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nott, John
Wall, Patrick


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Onslow, Cranley
Ward, Dame Irene


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Weatherill, Bernard


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Webster, David


Jopling, Michael
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Worsley, Marcus


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pardoe, John



Kirk, Peter
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kitson, Timothy
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. Reginald Eyre and




Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
da Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Alldritt, Walter
Dempsey, James
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Anderson, Donald
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras,S.)


Archer, Peter
Dickens, James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Armstrong, Ernest
Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lawson, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Ledger, Ron


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Barnett, Joel
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Baxter, William
Ellis, John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bence, Cyril
English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus


Bidwell, Sydney
Ennals, David
Lomas, Kenneth


Binns, John
Ensor, David
Loughlin, Charles


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Luard, Evan


Blackburn, F.
Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McBride, Neil


Boston, Terence
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacColl, James


Boyden, James
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacDermot, Niall


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Forrester, John
Macdonald, A. H.


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Freeson, Reginald
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Garrett, W. E.
Mackintosh, John P.


Buchan, Norman
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Maclennan, Robert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, Archie


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marquand David


Chapman, Donald
Hamling, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Coe, Denis
Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Concannon, J. D.
Haseldine, Norman
Millan, Bruce


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hattersley, Roy
Mitchell, R. C. (S''th'pton, Test)


Crawshaw, Richard
Haffer, Eric S.



Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dalyell, Tam
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Moyle, Roland


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Newens, Stan


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Norwood, Christopher


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon







Ogden, Eric
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Symonds, J. B.


O'Malley, Brian
Richard, Ivor
Taverne, Dick


Orme, Stanley
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Oswald, Thomas
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Varley, Eric G.


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Paget, R. T.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wallace, George


Palmer, Arthur
Rose, Paul
Watkins, David (Consett)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Ryan, John
Wellbeloved, James


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pavitt, Laurence
Sheldon, Robert
Wilkins, W. A.


Pearson, Arthur (Pontyprldd)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pentland, Norman
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Silverman, Julius
Winnick, David


Price, William (Rugby)
Slater, Joseph
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Probert, Arthur
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Randall, Harry
Snow, Julian



Rankin, John
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rees, Merlyn
Stonehouse, John
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Reynolds, G. W.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO GAMING FOR PRIZES

(1)This section applies to any gaming which (being gaming to which Part II of this Act applies) is gaming for prizes in respect of which the conditions specified in the next following subsection are fulfilled.

(2) Those conditions are that—

(a) the amount paid by any person for any one chance to win a prize does not exceed one shilling;
(b) the aggregate amount taken by way of the sale of chances in any one determination of winners (if any) of prizes does not exceed fifty shillings, and the sale of those chances and the declaration of the result take place on the same day and on the premises on which, and at the time when, the game is played;
(c) no money prize exceeding one shilling is distributed or offered;
(d) the winning of, or the purchase of a chance to win, a prize does not entitle any person (whether subject to a further payment by him or not) to any further opportunity to win money or money's worth by taking part in any other gaming or in any lottery; and
(e) the aggregate amount or value of the prizes on any one determination of winners does not exceed fifty shillings.

(3)Sections 13 and 14 of this Act shall not have effect in relation to any gaming to which this section applies which takes place on premises in respect of which a licence under this Act is for the time being in force.

(4)Where any gaming to which this section applies lakes place on any bingo club premises, section 17 of this Act shall not have effect so as to prevent persons under eighteen from being present in any room on those premises while any such gaming takes place there,

if they do not take part in the gaming as players.

(5)Where on the grant or renewal of a licence under this Act in respect of any premises the licensing authority impose restrictions under paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 to this Act whereby gaming on those premises is limited to a particular game or games, those restrictions, in so far as they so limit the gaming, shall not have effect in relation to any gaming to which this section applies.

(6)Where a game of bingo is played for prizes on any bingo club premises, and constitutes gaming to which this section applies, the prizes won in that game shall be disregarded for the purposes of section 20(4) of this Act.

(7)No account shall be taken of subsection (5) of this section for the purpose of determining—

(a) whether a club is one to which section 20 of this Act applies, or
(b) whether any premises are bingo club premises, or
(c) whether, for the purposes of Schedule 2 to this Act, a licence under this Act is a bingo club licence.

(8) The Secretary of State may by order direct that any paragraph of subsection (2) of this section which is specified in the order and which specifies a sum shall have effect as if, for that sum, there were substituted such other sum as may be specified in the order.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This gives licensed gaming clubs the right to indulge in gaming for small prizes on conditions parallel to those under which, by virtue of Section 49 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, as amended by Schedule 11 to the Bill,


such gaming may be provided, for example, by travelling showmen or at pleasure grounds and amusement arcades on permit from the local authority.
The right of a licensed club to provide this gaming is made absolute. It cannot be precluded by any conditions attached to a licence by the justices. Where, for instance, they issue a bingo club licence, the club concerned may indulge in gaming of this type in addition to bingo without losing any privileges which attach to a licence under Clause 20. Where the conditions of the new Clause are observed, they will operate to the exclusion of Clauses 13 and 14; that is to say, games of unequal chance may be played and charges made to the players irrespective of any restrictions required by or under those provisions.
I trust that the House will agree that it would be highly illogical that a club licensed for commercial gaming of a serious kind should be prevented from diversifying its activities as the bingo clubs often wish to do by providing occasional light-hearted amusements of the fairground type with strictly limited prizes. As it now stands, the Bill is meant to allow this, but the method that it adopts in Schedule 11 is to bring the licensed gaming clubs within the scope of Section 49 of the 1963 Act, thus entitling them to provide "amusements with prizes" under the terms of that Section, just as amusement arcades may now, but in the clubs' case without having to get a permit.
Many hon. Members will be aware that the argumentation in the case of Fox v. Adamson has, however, thrown doubt on the efficacy of this approach. It suggests that a game like bingo could not be played on the same premises under two different codes of law, sometimes in the form of "amusements with prizes" under Section 49 of the 1963 Act, and at other times in the form of gaming under Part II of this Bill.
The remedy which is adopted in the new Clause is to allow licensed clubs the equivalent of " amusements with prizes " but, as a variety of gaming—"gaming for prizes"—treated under Part II. This not only gets over the legal difficulty but has other advantages. In particular, it attracts the operation of Clause 12 of the Bill, thus confining participation in this form of gaming to members of the

club and their bona fide guests. It also attracts the penalty provisions of Clause 22 and Schedule 2, thus making breaches of the conditions punishable not merely by court proceedings but also by cancellation of the licence, at the discretion of the licensing justices. This may also be followed by the withdrawal by the Gaming Board of all or any of the certificates issued to the licence holder.
I do not think that I need go on to deal in detail with the subsections, but if comments are made by any hon. Members, I shall be very willing to do so.

Mr. Buck: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the purpose of the new Clause. At this stage, perhaps I might add that I am grateful to him for having allowed me to receive certain information through his Department which has caused me to understand some of the more technical Clauses to be moved today more readily than might otherwise have been the case.
As I understand it, the most significant part of the new Clause makes it clear that, in practice, bingo clubs can provide amusements with prizes within the same premises. On the whole, I am sure that it is acceptable to the House. However, there is some consternation among members of the Amusement Caterers Association about it, who feel that what they regard as this further concession to bingo halls and those having licensed bingo premises may be harmful to those who run arcades and so forth. But I have not had strenuous representations on that score, and no doubt the new Clause will be acceptable to those who operate within these spheres generally.
I welcome the Clause because of the enforceability point. Only yesterday, I was discussing various aspects of the Bill with those who have detailed knowledge of the operation of bingo halls and amusement arcades, who pointed out to me that in many bingo halls this has been going on for some time, there has not been proper enforcement, and the Clause represents a recognition of the state of affairs in many parts of the country already. It permits bingo halls to have gaming of a lesser character under the same roof, but there is no question of allowing in bingo halls hard gaming combined with bingo. That should be made


clear, because inevitably, the hon. Gentleman explained the Clause in somewhat technical language, which could not be avoided in a Clause of this character.
The Clause is eminently sensible. The technical side of enforceability follows the pattern found elsewhere in the Bill, and I find it totally acceptable.

Mr. Weitzman: I am grateful to the Government for having brought in the new Clause, because it cures a curious anomaly in the 1963 Act, and I raised the point in Committee. In Fox. v. Adamson, there was a clear decision that where amusements with prizes were offered in a bingo hall, the playing of bingo became illegal. I wonder if the Government will now do something about those who have been fined as a result of this so-called offence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I have to announce a slight change in Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of Amendments. New Clause 3 will not now be moved, but it can be taken for debate with New Clause 5 and Government Amendments Nos. 100 and 101.

Accordingly, we now come to new Clause 4.

New Clause 4

USE OF CLUB PREMISES FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN GAMING

Notwithstanding anything in Section 21 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall not make regulations requiring a licensing authority to refuse to grant or renew a licence under Part II of this Act to any club on the grounds that the premises are used for purposes other than gaming.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause goes to the heart of Part II of the Bill and deals with a matter which caused considerable lengthy debate in Committee; that is, the type of club which the Home Secretary foresees being permitted to have a licence under the Bill, and particularly the type of regulations which he proposes to make

which would prevent certain types of clubs getting licences.
It may be convenient to remind the House of the background of this new Clause. On Second Reading the Home Secretary said:
My object will be to exclude gaming altogether from night clubs and similar clubs and establishments, and substantially to restrict the number of clubs specialising in gaming …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 1171.]
I want to refer to the words, "to exclude gaming altogether from night clubs and similar clubs and establishments". It is clear from what the Home Secretary said then, and, indeed, in Committee, that his intention was to pass regulations which would prevent gaming licences being obtained by clubs that have other activities than gaming.
This matter was raised first by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) during Committee stage when he attempted to move a Clause which had a similar intention, although the wording was slightly different. As a result of the debate on that Clause the then Parliamentary Secretary slightly changed his attitude towards the matter. In Committee he said that he had noted hon. Members' speeches, he had recognised that there was a difficult problem, and that he thought it right, in the light of those speeches, that the Government should not press on the Committee, or indeed on the House, a final decision. He went on to say that the intention of the Government was that they would seek the advice of the Gaming Board and that they would not frame their regulations until the Gaming Board had given that advice. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman quite rightly made it clear, because he did not wish in any way to mislead the Committee, that it might well be that, as a result of that advice, the Home Secretary would still come before the House with regulations which would specifically prevent the issue of a licence to any club which had facilities other than pure gaming.
The object of the new Clause is to give Parliament the opportunity to write into the Bill a statement that the Home Secretary shall not, under his powers under Clause 21 of the Bill, make regulations requiring licensing justices to refuse to


grant a licence merely on the ground that the club has other facilities. This is the substantial difference between this new Clause and the Clause moved by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newing-ton and Hackney, North.
The object of his Clause was that the Home Secretary should specifically tell the licensing justices that they should not refuse a licence if the club had other facilities. We are not saying that he should not dictate to the licensing justices. They would still have the power to license or not license any club as they thought fit. All we are saying is that the Home Secretary should not exclude from their area of consideration those clubs, which, for simplicity's sake, were regarded as mixed clubs during Committee stage, where some other activity than gaming applies. All hon. Members on the Committee, other than the Government spokesman, felt that it would be wrong for the Home Secretary to make an arbitrary decision that no club could have a licence if other facilities than gaming were provided.
5.45 p.m.
I will give two examples. The first is the cabaret type of club which is prevalent in the North-West and the North-East of England. The second is the Playboy type of club where at the moment in separate rooms wholly separate facilities on the basis of dancing and things of that nature are provided as well as gaming but still under the one club roof. I can only repeat what I said on Second Reading. I do not believe that there is anything socially more objectionable in allowing gaming to occur in clubs which have other facilities than to permit pure gaming clubs. My feeling is that those clubs which have other facilities are in many ways socially more desirable than purely gaming establishments.
I will deal, first, with the cabaret clubs, because I know that many hon. Members on both sides have knowledge of those and will have contributions to make. There is no doubt that in the North of England there are many clubs which, on a Saturday night, provide cabaret entertainment of a high standard, much of which is provided and paid for because the clubs also make

money on gaming. The proprietors of those clubs seem convinced that, in the absence of being permitted to continue their gaming activities, they would not be able to afford the type of artistes and the standard of entertainment which is now provided.
Although many of my hon. Friends may not agree, I think that the Home Secretary would be on very strong ground if he said, "Never in the same room." There is a lot to be said for keeping the gaming not only not in the same room as the cabaret but not in the same room as the bar. But there is no justification for saying that one cannot have a well-run casino gaming room merely because one also provides other entertainment for the same or other members of the same family. It would be stupid to suggest that hard gaming is a harmless family activity. Nevertheless, one accepts and knows that the kind of clubs one is talking about in the North of England provide much family entertainment on a Saturday night through their cabaret media.
I believe that the real attitude we should take on this part of the Bill was something expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) during the debate on this part of the Bill when he said that surely the important thing was that we should retain a high standard of club and, provided we only licensed clubs which were of a high standard, what on earth difference did it make whether they were solely gaming clubs or were gaming clubs with other facilities as well.
I believe that the Amendments to the Bill which we are to discuss later and which I am sure will be welcomed by practically everyone in the House, whereby the Government have decided that before any premises can get a licence they must get a certificate of approval from the Board without any right of appeal from that arbitrary decision, should ensure that any club that gets a licence, having first secured a certificate of approval and gone successfully through the licensing process before the licensing justices, must be a club of high standard. If it is a club of high standard, I do not see why we should, by regulation, prevent or attempt to prevent it having a licence to carry on gaming merely because it provides other facilities as well.
Leaving aside cabaret clubs on which other hon. Gentlemen may be better able to speak from a constituency viewpoint than I am, I come back to the general principle of those clubs which perhaps have gaming on one floor and dancing on another. Here I am bound to repeat the name of the Playboy Club, although I got a highly abusive letter from someone who complained about hon. Members who advertise only American and not British gaming institutions. I believe that many hon. Members on both sides of the House who were in the Committee had the opportunity of visiting some of these places. If gaming can be reasonably innocent, then I believe it is no less innocent in those clubs which have other facilities, with gaming taking place on a floor apart, than it is in clubs where gaming only is being carried on. It would be a great pity if a club which provided other facilities besides gaming were to be prevented from providing those other facilities, or compelled to throw out that part of the club which perhaps subsidises its other facilities.
During the Committee stage, the proposals of the Government were opposed by practically everybody, and it was as a result of that that the Government in part gave way. I hope that now they will give way still further and accept this new Clause and agree not to try, by regulation, to prevent clubs of this kind having the right, at least, to apply for a licence.

Mr. Oakes: As on the last new Clause I was consistent with what I said and did in Committee, so in this new Clause I shall be equally consistent with what I said upstairs.
I would again stress to my right hon. Friend the complete difference between clubs of this nature, cabaret clubs in the provinces and, in particular, those in the North of England, and the type of clubs I am quite certain my right hon. Friend envisages which exist in the Metropolitan area. In most towns in the North we have very little live entertainment. There was none at all for years after the theatres had closed down as a result of lack of support and because artistes were concentrated in London.
Clubs were set up and made money, some of it from their gaming activities; but the money they made from those activities, to the credit of the owners of

those clubs, was used to build better premises, and to this day it is being used to bring live high-class entertainment into provincial towns. These clubs do not make money in the sense that London clubs do out of gaming. They use the profits from gaming to subsidise the entertainment they are providing, often the only live entertainment being provided in the area.
The money comes from drinks sold at the bar. It is in this way that most of the clubs make profits. They have spent vast sums of money in building excellent clubs and providing facilities which the brewers have never thought of providing, hence the great number of people who go to clubs and the less who go to the pubs.
I believe that it would be quite wrong, with no reason having been given in Committee—I do not know whether any reason can be given to the House today —to say that because entertainment is provided on those club premises all the capital that has been tied up in the clubs must disappear, that, therefore, the live entertainment must disappear and that, virtually, the clubs must close. My right hon. Friend may say that there is no need for a club to close, but if a club is not a financial success it is bound to close. These clubs have to nay very high rates to get top artistes to come out of the Metropolitan area and to the provinces. For that reason the clubs must have a source of money and the gaming tables in the clubs are that source.
With regard to the kind of gaming that takes place in these clubs, as was said upstairs—and I believe that hon. Members on both sides will reinforce this— while it may not be quite a harmless family game of bingo it is not far short of it. This is not gaming on a vast scale where hundreds or thousands of pounds change hands during the course of the night and where someone may come out ruined. The family go along to these clubs and it may be that in the course of the evening father may have a spin on the roulette wheel, but little beyond that.
The clubs are most careful in limiting the amount of stakes in the gaming room because they must rely on those people coming back. This is not London. This is a provincial town and it may well be the same people coming to the club week


after week. If they were to find that they were leaving the club with no money, that all the housekeeping money had gone, they would stop going to the club. That would be bad business for the club. It does not happen.
As the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, the former Under-Secretary in Committee conceded that at least the Gaming Board would be consulted on this before any action was taken with regard to regulations. That is a good thing. Even better is an Amendment which I did not notice when it was made upstairs to Schedule 2, paragraph 23, on page 50 of the amended Bill, providing that
Subject to the next folowing sub-paragraph,"—
which relates only to bingo clubs—
on granting or renewing a licence under this Act the licensing authority (whether they impose any restrictions under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph or not) may impose restrictions limiting the purposes, other than gaming, for which, while the licence is in force, the relevant premises may be used, either generally or at such times as may be specified in the restrictions.
Could that be paving the way—I hope it is—for the Gaming Board not to have to make a blanket refusal of a licence to any club where entertainment takes place, but to be able itself to pick and choose whether or not a club is a good and well run one, which is the Board's job? No one objects to the cabaret club which is not completely legal and is not abiding by the rules, failing to get a licence. But I and my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite object to the refusal of a licence solely on the ground that entertainment takes place within the club premises.
Like the hon. Member for Runcorn, I would entirely agree that the gaming facilities of a club should be in a separate room, perhaps on a separate floor, away from where the cabaret and drinking is going on. In my experience, this is invariably the case. Certainly, the gaming is in a room separate from the cabaret. Therefore, as far as the new Clause is concerned, I am keeping an open mind, because I do not know what my right hon. Friend will say at the end.
I would like him to bear very much in mind that hon. Members on all sides of the House from the provinces who

have experience of this type of club can assure him that in the main they are harmless in respect of the vice that attaches to gaming; but much more important, they have employed the profits they have gained from gaming to bring entertainment to areas which otherwise would not have had it, and in terms of both entertainment and premises have brightened up towns.
I would like my right hon. Friend to regard most carefully what was said by the hon. Member for Runcorn. Whether we accept the Clause depends on what my right hon. Friend says in reply to the debate.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: As the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, I raised this point in Committee in a somewhat different form. I should like to echo something that was said by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) when we debated the first new Clause. It seems curious that when a Bill is committed to a Committee, and that Committee goes through the Bill line by line, and word by word, and the whole Committee, apart from the then Under-Secretary of State, is in favour of the principle behind an Amendment, the Government should not say, "We have a new Clause which represents what the Committee as a whole agree to, and, therefore, we shall accept the principle behind it, whether in its present form or some other form". It is important from the point of view of the working of Parliament that that should be done.
Secondly, it is wrong to say that what we ought to establish here is a monopoly of gaming clubs, that is, that we should give a licence to gaming clubs which carry on only gaming, because those words establish a monopoly. Surely it is wrong to grant a licence to a club which is concerned only with gaming? I do not want to repeat the powerful arguments which have been put forward today. There are cabaret clubs, and other clubs, part of whose activities consist of gaming, and where the profits from the gaming are used largely to provide good entertainment by way of cabarets. Why should not that be so? I could not understand my right hon. Friend's attitude during the Second Reading debate when he said that he was going to see that clubs, apart from gaming clubs, were


not allowed to do any gaming. On the face of it, that seems to be wrong.
I rather like the wording of the Clause, because it seems to put the matter very clearly. An application is made for a gaming licence. The machinery of the Board is available to vet the bona fides of the applicant. That is the first stile over which the applicant has to get. Having got over it the matter then proceeds to the licensing justices who have power to inquire whether, in all the circumstances, it is proper to grant a licence.
The Clause says that no regulations shall be made
requiring a licensing authority to refuse to grant or renew a licence under Part II of this Act to any club on the grounds that the premises are used for purposes other than gaming.
All the circumstances will be before the justices. They will know the constitution of the club. They will know the premises. They will know that the application has been vetted by the Board. They will go into the matter and consider whether, in the circumstances, it is proper to grant a licence. I cannot see how it can be said to be unreasonable to agree to a preposition of that kind.
I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Clause, or at any rate agree to insert a provision along the lines of it.

Mr. Deedes: I support the Clause. It is early days in which to reach a final decision on this matter. This is one of the more dangerous parts of the Bill, because we are inviting ourselves to make one of those judgments which, in the end, is nearly always proved to be faulty.
I have no local interest in a cabaret club, but there is another side to the coin. It may be said that the money acquired by these means ought not to be used to draw in talent, which then becomes unavailable anywhere else, from the diminishing music-hall scene. The case has been made that a lot of talent is drawn into the cabaret club circle which can afford prices which no one else can afford because of the manner in which it is financed, and that this leads to the detriment of entertainment elsewhere. I do not press the matter, because I have no local interest in cabaret clubs.
It is open to question whether the gaming club which exists for gaming only, with a minimum of facilities for refreshment or other amusement, is necessarily less dangerous or less squalid than the sort of establishment which some of my hon. Friends would like to see. Some of us have had the experience during recent weeks of visiting a wide variety of establishments. The ones which chilled my blood were those in which people were there for gaming, and for no other reason. Those in which people sit around a shoe or wheel without any other form of comfort or interest are those which from time to time bring me round to the Home Secretary's side. I hope, therefore, that he will weigh carefully whether that is the sort of establishment with which he wants to end up.
If the right hon. Gentleman tries to impose restrictions and goes contrary to the sense of the Clause, he must consider what will happen when some of these establishments seek to provide facilities of their own. I raised this point in Committee. What limit will be imposed on the comforts which gaming clubs can offer to their customers as an added inducement to go there, and how close will it be possible to get to the night club style of establishment by adding amenities to the wheel and shoe? This is something which the Board will have to regulate, but before we come to a final decision let us bear in mind that the thing may not work out quite as we hope now.
The evil which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind of people going out for an evening's entertainment and being lured into a form of gaming which they neither expected before they went out, nor desire to participate in when they enter the premises, can be exaggerated. Why not allow the Board to build up a little experience in this matter before we reach any irrevocable decision? Nearly everything that has been said on this matter both here and in Committee is based on very little evidence. What little we have seen does not amount to experience worthy of the name. After six months or a year the Board will have a much clearer view of whether there are evils involved, and whether there ought to be restrictions and regulations.
I hope that the Home Secretary will accept that approach.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) I, too, have a fair record of consistency in this rather limited but important matter, and I hope to be consistent today. The Home Secretary knows my views. I expressed them on Second Reading, and also with moderate eloquence in Committee upstairs. I ask him not to be too swayed by the London argument, because clubs in the North-West, particularly Lancashire, are very different. The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said that going to a cabaret club has become a regular pattern of life for ordinary decent families in the North-West. I would not like these clubs, which provide good live entertainment in an area where there is not just a dearth of it but where the music hall and live theatre are non-existent, replaced because of a rigid Clause about hard gaming establishments. I fear that that would happen.
I agree that the gaming facilities of such a club should be completely separate, but the vast majority of people who go to them go to see the cabaret and not to gamble. My right hon. Friend is wrong if he believes that, because there is cabaret and gaming in the same club, people who gamble modestly will be made into compulsive and addicted gamblers. There is no evidence that that would happen.
The new Clause has merit and I ask him not to be too rigid in his interpretation. I will listen to him very carefully.

Mr. Paget: It would be possible to make a long list of absurd things which one would wish to restrain the Minister from doing, but I can see no point in it. I cannot imagine that any Home Secretary would be foolish enough to put into Clause 21 a general prohibition about a gambling club ever being used for any other purpose, because that would be ridiculous—

Mr. Hogg: But the trouble is that it was precisely this which the right hon. Gentleman at least gave us the impression on Second Reading that he would do. This is why we wish to restrain him from doing so or at least that he should undertake not to do so.

Mr. Paget: But it is not-in the Bill now and I did not understand my right hon. Friend to mean that.
Of course one must apply one's common sense to this and realise how different the circumstances may be. On the one hand, it would be highly undesirable if the cabaret artistes took people to the gaming tables and sat beside them, as is often done in France, with girls acting as hostesses or performers to persuade people to gamble. It would also be undesirable to restrain northern clubs, which are having perfectly proper cabarets, from doing what is the best thing they do.
6.15 p.m.
We are all claiming consistency with our remarks in Committee and I must fall in with that, although I see no particular wisdom in not changing one's mind after hearing further arguments. My line in Committee, which I am not yet persuaded was wrong, was that the only rule which my right hon. Friend need make is that the club should abide by the rules approved for it by the Board, and that the Board would give its certificate of approval on the basis of those rules, which would include the club's objectives, perhaps cabaret, as well as limitations as to where on the premises it would be held.
If the arrangements met the Board's approval, which would have my right hon. Friend's confidence, it would be all right. If they did not, it would be all wrong. But surely we do not want a general provision under Clause 21 applying everywhere, to all clubs. Let us leave this to the Board. We should let the rules of each club be part of its application for approval and let them set out what the club proposes to do. If they are approved and abided by, they should, also have my right hon. Friend's approval.

Mr. Callaghan: The value of the Committee stage is that it enables hon. Members to think again. I have been influenced by some of the arguments. I repudiate once again the odd constitutional doctrine which has taken root on both sides this afternoon that, because something was decided in Committee, or the Committee expressed a certain view, the House itself cannot take a different one. If that were so, we might as well get rid of most of the Report stage, whose object is to allow Members to think again and the whole House to express its view.
I know that there is a great passion for reforming all our institutions, but we will not do so to the point of saying that everything done in Committee should be regarded as sacrosanct for ever, because that would be rubbish—

Sir S. McAdden: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that our point was that, in Committee, all hon. Members are present, hear the discussion and vote, whereas on Report only a handful of Members attend, they do not hear the discussion and they vote without having heard it. That is not an expression of Parliament's will.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, those hon. Members present today are the same ones as; were in Committee. It is clear that the great majority of the House has complete confidence in the Government's wisdom in this matter, and, until they express themselves to the contrary, a majority has always been the best argument in these matters.
As the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, this goes to the heart of the issue of whether hard gaming should be combined with cabaret or other entertainment. As I said on Second Reading, I confess to a very strong repugnance that it should be so combined. It is an advantage, because, if the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) went to a strict gaming club which was nothing else and felt repelled by the atmosphere, that would be a guarantee that he was not likely to return, whereas if he were seduced by the top-class cabaret as well, he might fall a victim and I do not want to lose him to anything of that sort, at least until he is defeated at the next election.
So I confess to a prejudice for having a relatively small core of hard gaming clubs, because hard gaming is an evil. It brings with it blackmail, extortion and, in the extreme case, murder. There is no avoiding this issue. I therefore do not wish, as long as I am in this office to encourage people to indulge in hard gaming.
I said that I had been influenced by what had been said. I have been influenced to the extent that there are a number of institutions—the clubs in the North are a classic case—where gaming is used to subsidise high-class cabaret

shows and is subsidiary to the shows. There is nothing that I want to say against the people of the North. Indeed, I could say a lot for them. They live, work and play hard and they deserve everything that they get in this sphere. I mention them because this is a particular phenomenon of the North and one that I want to take into account.
Before doing so, however, I return to the fact that scarcely anything has contributed more to the popularity of hard gaming such as roulette, craps and blackjack than their adoption by the clubs. More people have been introduced to hard gaming through cabaret clubs than in any other way—people who previously had no idea what these things were about—and this is supported by strong arguments of social policy, irrespective of practical points of view. It is this which brought the Council of Churches on Gambling down on the side of the argument for restriction. A number of these cabaret clubs—and they are not all as innocent as is sometimes made out—have been so intent on increasing profits from the tables that it has become the custom to play roulette not with just one zero, but with two, and to provide games like boule with four or five zeros. This is extortion, but the clubs claim that it is essential if the cabaret is to survive.
I want to hold a balance in this position. We must be careful how far we allow the clubs to go in this matter. I understand that these cabaret clubs are attracting a very high standard and quality of artist and are charging in some cases absolutely minimal entrance fees such as Is. or 2s. for the whole evening. It is difficult to believe that people would not be prepared to pay more for an evening's entertainment by well-known artistes. If they are not, then that is not a very good argument for saying that there is such a compelling demand. I invite the House to hold a balance in this matter.
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Runcorn. If we accepted the new Clause which he moved we would be doing what I was asked not to do, which is to prejudge the issue. I do not press the House to judge the issue finally tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) should remember that under Clause 49(3) I am empowered to make different regulations


for different areas. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) asked me not to be over-influenced by London. I urge them to remember that under that provision
Any power to make regulations under this Act may be exercised so as to make different provision for different areas or in relation to different cases or different circumstances to which the power is applicable.
There is flexibility in the Measure and I would like to see consideration given to this question of the need for flexibility. Thus, for the reasons I have given, I do not wish to accept the new Clause because to do so would be to prejudge the issue. But in the light of the discussion which has taken place, I repeat what was said in a guarded form in Committee by the Under Secretary; I would like the Gaming Board to go into the whole question, to balance the arguments, some of which I have adduced today, about the need for this provision, to examine it in depth and then to advise me, after which 1 shall be able to decide the best regulations, which would then, at that stage, come before Parliament.
This would enable the considerations which have been advanced by hon. Members on both sides to be taken into account. It would also enable me to return to the House with the advantage of the Gaming Board's full consideration of the social and practical issues involved. I hope that the House will be willing to accept this as a way of meeting some of the legitimate criticisms that have been made, since I fear that I cannot ask the House to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the Home Secretary has gone as far as he has towards meeting a point of view with which, I fear, he is somewhat out of sympathy and about which I wish to comment further. Had he been a little more forthcoming I would have felt less hesitation about the matter, because I appreciate that there are technical arguments against a new Clause of this kind, which would limit the power of regulations. I was disturbed by the general tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks because I was alarmed by his approach. I have no doubt about his sincerity, but I have considerable disquiet about the extent of his naivety.
I do not think that I take a particularly less social attitude—a cosy and imprecise phrase which the right hon. Gentleman constantly uses on these occasions—than does the Home Secretary. I regard gambling as irrational and I have always tried to discourage people from doing it. In so far as I have been able to influence my family, I have virtually prevented them from doing it. I would always do the same for other people.
I have reached two baffling conclusions in the matter of gambling and they have a close bearing on the subject of the new Clause. The first is that the only way of controlling it is by licensing and taxing it, with a board in control. The second is that if one wants to get rid of blackmail, extortion and murder—the three emotive words the Horte Secritaly threw into the pool—one must forget, once and for all, one's subjective, moral convictions about gambling as gambling and put the matter under a form of control, which is the aim of the Bill.
It is because I have these convictions that 1 am profoundly disturbed about the approach which the Home Secretary makes to this question of the so-called mixed club. The word "hypocrisy" has been used a few times today. Continental peoples tend to charge the British public and Parliament with hypocrisy very much because of their attitude to this subject of gambling. I do not think that it is hypocrisy. It is, rather, naivety. We begin by coming to conclusions that we cannot altogether prevent smoking, drinking or perhaps other things which may or may not be thought to be immoral— and in this class gambling is normally included—and then, having decided to allow it, we make it as unpleasant as possible, so we think. The result is that the public-house produces only beer, that the betting shop produces only betting and that the gambling establishment apparently produces only gambling, and not " bunnies " as well. The result is that one gets a kind of hard-faced viciousness to which my right hon. Friend referred, with none of the civilising influences of music or even food, which, one would think, might temper the viciousness of the activity.
6.30 p.m.
I personally, although I think my own attitude is as strongly antagonistic to gambling as is the Home Secretary's,


view this with profound disquiet. I was touched not a little by the fact that in common with Archbishop Lord Fisher of Lambeth I was myself selected by the promoters of the Playboy Club for foundation membership. Unlike the former Primate, I did not write to The Times in protest, because I thought that it was something of a compliment, if not to my virtue at least to my virility, but I did not actually take that membership up.
However, I must say that, at any rate, in principle, I am quite unable to see that the Playboy Club is inherently more vicious than, say, Crockford's, or one of the other ones. I cannot see why the Home Secretary should take this view. On the contrary, my general approach to this matter is that we should see what our experience of this kind of club may be.
If the Home Secretary, in reply to my hon. and learned Friend, said simply that he was proposing to think about it again in the light of his prejudices I should have unhesitatingly advised this side of the House to divide in favour of this new Clause. I am rather moved by the fact that he seems to recognise that he is not, after all, the right man to decide this kind of thing and that he proposes, so he has informed the House, to leave it to the Board. Well, that is some sign of grace—

Mr. Callaghan: I do not propose to leave it to the Board. I said I would consult the Board, and, obviously, take its advice, but the final decision must remain with me. I promise the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I am not naive, but we may see, as any Home Secretary has seen, the consequences, and the evil consequences, which underlie this gambling. This must be constantly in the mind of every Member in the Chamber when considering this subject.

Mr. Hogg: I think not the least naive thing about the Home Secretary is his refusal to believe that those who differ from him have the same knowledge of social conditions as he. I think that the mistake he is making, if he will allow me to say so, is in not realising that the object of the Bill, if it is successful, is precisely to cut out, by a close type of control, the kind of evils to which he is referring. I admit that those evils

have existed in the past. I have already, on Second Reading and in numerous debates in Committee, described why, I think, those evils have arisen.
The evils to which the Home Secretary refers, blackmail, extortion, and even violence and murder, are due precisely to the fact that in the past we have either outlawed gaming altogether, which meant that we put it into the hands, virtually, of the criminal classes, who enforce a kind of gangster law of their own, or, alternatively, have done what the 1963 Bill did, left them with the necessity of strong-arm methods, and have not adopted the method, which the Bill rightly adopts, of control subject to licence, and, I hope, subsequently, of sufficiently high taxation to limit, both to the punter and to the promoter of the gambling club, the profitability of the exercise.
Once we have done that we must have the courage to allow the proposals made in a Bill of this kind some opportunity for success. The trouble with the Home Secretary is that he never will have the courage of his convictions in this matter and always tries to paint the lily with some kind of prohibitions which, in the nature of things, will only repeat the mistakes which we have made in the past and which we are trying to get out of.
I was saying, when the right hon. Gentleman—courteously, of course—interrupted me, that he had seemed to me to betray some sign of grace towards the end of his speech in recognising that, as it were, he does not propose to be the best judge of this matter, but proposes to take the advice of the Board, advice which the Board will tender to him after a certain amount of experience and not simply from a priori thinking. This, above all, is a matter in which a priori thinking ought to be avoided and experience ought to be our guide as to what we do in the future, which is precisely why we on this side of the House are anxious to give the Board the maximum degree of power, and rejoice that the Home Secretary has, to some extent at any rate, yielded to our persuasion, because he has said that he proposes to take the advice of the Board. While I recognise that the legal responsibility must, under the framework of the Bill, remain with him, I hope that he will take the Board's advice and not simply receive it.
Because the right hon. Gentleman said that, my own disposition is that we accept that assurance, because I can see that there are technical reasons against this new Clause, of the kind which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said—one can draw up a list of silly things we do not want to do and then prohibit the Home Secretary from not doing them. That, I agree, would be contemptuous of the Government and, perhaps, bad from the point of view of legislation, because our list would never be wholly exhaustive.
I rejoice at the small signs of grace which the Home Secretary has shown, and I hope that, after some experience of the operation, he will be less Puritan in his outlook, and believe that those who do not take the view that he takes about these things are not in themselves less moral.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I apologise to the House for adding a few words, but I do so because a few things were not covered in debate here or in Committee. I underline every word which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has so eloquently expressed.
In all countries at present where gambling is going on—France, Belgium, America—the move is away from the isolated casino and rather towards the club, and on town planning grounds the move is now to have one hereditament in which in part of the area there is dancing, in another part cabaret, in another part gaming; but, of course, it is a separate gaming room.
There is in this debate a good deal of misunderstanding of this fact and of what the position is. For example, if we take Berkeley Square, and the well-known club there, I presume that the famous night club in the basement is to be treated as being in separate premises from the equally well-known gaming institution on the first floor. I imagine that it is so; I imagine that it is wholly separate.
Take Hamilton Place. There, there is now a night club in the basement, one of the best restaurants possible on the ground floor, and gaming on the first floor. Within the past year those premises have very much improved their gaming

and facilities. They are now among the best in the world.
There are up and down the country at present certain places where I agree with the Home Secretary that the cabaret should not be on the same site as the gaming. There should be a quite separate means of entry. For example, one would pay to go into the cabaret on the ground floor and then have to go as a member into a totally separate club for gaming. In so far as the premises are totally separate, I agree that in that sense of the word they should be separate. But it is absurd if the suggestion is that we should have to close all our best clubs, or that they would have to go to totally separate premises like Crockford's.
The reason for this suggestion in the Home Office originally is that when France began gaming it decided to have totally separate casinos. It is only (relatively recently that one finds the private club in Paris. There is one for men only, and it is there that one gets what the Home Secretary calls hard gaming. I think that it is right to have separate rooms for hard gaming, but in the North it is not, in the main, hard gaming in the true sense of the word. I do not propose to go into the argument about whether men and women are induced into gaming. They are introduced with the Is. or the 2s., as they are on football pools and elsewhere.
We must not overlook that we have, with all its evils, probably the most successful gaming set-up in the world outside Nevada. The clubs are doing very well. It is just part of the swinging London of today and of the provinces that they should have the amenities and facilities of gambling which a civilised society should be able to have today.

Mr. Carlisle: In view of the speech by the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

HOURS OF OPENING OF GAMING CLUBS

No premises to which Part II of this Act applies shall be open for the purpose of gaming for more than 12 hours in any period of 24 hours.—[Mr. Deedes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that my predecessor in the Chair ruled that when taking new Clause 5, which we should have taken with new Clause 3, we might have a backward look at new Clause 3, "Permitted hours of play":
The Board shall regulate the hours of play during which gaming will be permitted to take place on premises to which Part II of this Act applies.
In imposing restrictions limiting the gaming the Board shall take into account the locality, the nature of the games and the circumstances of play and may provide different hours of play according to the local needs.
in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), and take Government Amendments No. 100 and No. 101.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Deedes: We recognise that the question of hours is difficult. My hon. Friends and I found hitting on the right answer very difficult. It is not only a question of how long clubs should be open, but who shall determine that. In our search for the answer we consulted a number of clubs, some of which I think even the Home Secretary would accept as reputable, and other witnesses. The new Clause roughly represents our thinking in the light of that experience.
As we left that matter in Committee, the hours were to be primarily a matter for local decisions. The Under-Secretary of State took the view that this was just the sort of thing which local justices could best do, having regard to such factors as clubs in residential areas where activity after one or two o'clock in the morning would be thought intolerable by the residents, and other considerations.
We remain of the view that as far as possible, effective control should be with the Board. I take it that that is the sense of new Clause 3 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). We accept, of course, that the Board should have regard to the local conditions and all the other considerations which the justices would take into account.
That said, I think that the number of hours in the 24 in which gaming should be possible is a matter on which Parliament should have the last word. We should take a view on it. It has been

accepted through all our earlier proceedings that in certain matters of principle Parliament should define the intention and determine what the line is to be, but that in matters of administrative detail as far as possible the Board should have effective control, and that where that is not possible the Home Secretary should act by means of the regulations.
This is a matter of principle, and that is how a great many clubs see it themselves. A number of them consider that the totality of hours in the 24 is a matter on which a central decision should be made. They do not see, any more than many of us would see, that clubs open for 24 hours during the day and night around the clock, and even around the week, are good for them or for the social good.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is the new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman proposes intended to be in addition to the powers which would be given to my right hon. Friend under Amendment No. 100, or in substitution for them?

Mr. Deedes: That is a point which I shall make later.
Those whom we have consulted generally take the view that 12 hours' gaming would be enough. Most of them added, though this is a matter of opinion, that 4 o'clock in the morning is late enough for most gaming clubs to be open. It would follow, therefore, that 4 o'clock in the afternoon would be early enough for them to open. I recognise that their views are not decisive, but there are two practical considerations. We are not just telling people what is for their own good.
The first practical matter is that of enforcement. We are to have inspectors who, I hope, will work in a reasonably harmonious relationship with the clubs, for how otherwise will they get their work done? It is clear that unless we limit the hours we shall require a large number of inspectors. If gaming is to take place around the clock, instead of the hours being limited to half that time, roughly double the number of inspectors would be required.
The other practical consideration—and this meets the point that the Home Secretary has in mind, to which we are not unsympathetic—is the need to contain gaming in general. If it is round the


clock, the last thing we shall do is to contain its extent. This coincides with the view of the reputable clubs. From time to time the Home Secretary lets fly at the clubs as if they were a comprehensive evil which we are here to repress. I am impressed by the point of view expressed by the owners of the reputable clubs.
I said this on Second Reading and since then I have met some of them. They feel that on the whole their businesses will succeed according to the reputation they achieve, partly among people in this country and partly among people abroad. No club in this country which wants to attract lucrative custom wishes to have a reputation for fiddling or running a bucket shop round the 24 hours to which nobody in his senses wants to go, at least for amusement.
The Home Secretary proposes to empower himself to restrict by regulations. We have never favoured allowing him to overburden himself with regulations under the Bill. The more the Board does, and the less the Home Office administration makes itself responsible for, the better. The Home Office is already overburdened and regulation making added by this provision would increase that burden.
The second objection is that the Bill would produce a very inflexible result. If the Home Secretary is to determine by regulation—I am not clear whether he means the totality of hours or the area of hours or the right to apply them locally— and goes too far in this direction, we shall find ourselves being advised by the Board in a year's time of the need for a fresh set of regulations. Generally speaking, we think that the less the Home Secretary requires to resort to regulation here the better. It is a matter on which the Board's experience would be quite invaluable. It would know the local variations.
But it is for Parliament to say what, generally speaking, the area and extent of gaming within the 24 hours should be and then for the Board to regulate these within the limits with regard to local conditions. That is the effective approach we want to make and even if the Undersecretary of State adheres to the wish to control by regulations—which we think wrong—I hope that he will accept that

Parliament should determine what the totality of hours should be. That is a principle we should declare in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we shall also be debating with new Clause 5 Government Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 and that, if that is the wish, the House can divide on them when we reach their proper place on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Paget: It is my experience generally that if we put in a maximum it becomes a minimum. To put in the maximum of 12 hours—which, in my view, would be far too much for most clubs—would be to make them a minimum. Inter-club competition, in so far as it exists, imposes a minimum all round. This is something which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ought not to do.
New Clause 3 is unnecessary. Once there is the situation in which application for a licence depends upon a consent having been negotiated with the Board, surely that consent must involve the rules having been negotiated and approved. The rules will surely set out what the hours are to be. Thus, the Board is already involved in deciding the hours of opening.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The purpose of the latter part of new Clause 3 is for Parliament to lay down the criteria to which the Board and the Home Secretary should apply their minds. They are the main criteria for determining what sort of hours a particular club ought reasonably to require.

Mr. Paget: If one has confidence in the Board—and in a sense the Bill depends on the Board—these are the very considerations which it will bear in mind when negotiating with applicants what the rules should be. I cannot think that we should pick out a list of criteria and assume that the Board has not got the sense to think of them itself and, indeed, of others we have not thought of.
Finally, we have as a backstop Government Amendment No. 100, which provides for the Home Secretary to impose restrictions if he should think it necessary. I hope that it will not be necessary, because I believe this matter is better left to the rules as negotiated with the Board. But it will be there


should it prove necessary and, therefore, I cannot see that new Clause 3 and new Clause 5 are either of them needed.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not having been here when I should have been in my place to move new Clause 3. My aircraft was somewhat late in arriving in this country and I was unable to get here sooner. I owe another apology for having been voiceless during the Committee stage, but I have read most of the proceedings, and certainly all the Ministerial and other leading speeches. I do not propose to repeat what was said in Committee about points which, due to unavoidable absence, I was unable to pursue.
I share the general tenor of the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), although I do not actually agree with new Clause 5, for obvious reasons. I agree that the Board is really the body which must regulate the hours and that it is inherent that there must be some regulation of hours. I still adhere to the view that the Board should, however, be given some specific criteria by Parliament as to its consideration. Such guidance has been forthcoming in the licensing laws.
In the main, these gaming clubs are not in residential areas. The prime consideration here is that they are generally in the centre of cities or major towns. The nature of the games played is of the greatest importance to fixing the hours. There should be one set of hours for a bridge or poker club, but when dealing with chemin de fer and roulette, for example, we find that these games do not even begin until perhaps 9 p.m. or usually 10 p.m. and may well go on till 5 a.m. or thereabouts. So some assistance should be given by Parliament about hours.
I do not think that the criteria are really so obvious except to those of us who have had international experience of the effects of gambling. I would be horrified if we were to permit in this country the situation which rules in Las Vegas, where one can gamble round the clock, 24 hours a day. I believe that that would also be the overwhelming view of the British public. Clearly, there must be regulation of hours.
However, it is idle to say that the Secretary of State will impose restrictions.

He will take the advice of those whom he believes will be of assistance to him— no doubt the Board and, I hope, this House, because, having read most of the Committee proceedings, I believe that the Committee gave a great deal of admirable counsel and wisdom. Therefore, the criteria, even if they are not to be set out in a new clause should be specifically incorporated as part of the criteria on which the Board should have the advice of the Secretary of State.
We have to know the type of criteria which will be provided. It is curious that, whereas the Home Secretary has provided for almost every type of contingency in the Bill, he has not provided for different hours in different areas.
The Under-Secretary is new to the Bill —and it must be an extremely difficult task for him to come new to a Bill of this sort, unless he has a great wealth of gaming experience behind him. I am sorry that his predecessor, who was wholly admirable, as one can see from the Committee stage proceedings, is not able to be sitting on the Front Bench with him during the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) specifically asked if he might be loaned to the hon. Gentleman for this debate. I hope that he will come back to discuss these points with him, because he showed a very shrewd sense of observance of these matters in many ways.
7.0 p.m.
Some provision must be made for different hours in different localities. The position is wholly different in the West End of London and perhaps places in Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool which have hours applicable to certain clubs operating there. They will be operating into the early hours and very much later than the normal club will require.
I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that if one is to have a board and to try to set up the best board possible one has to give it the residual power to be flexible and to be able to regulate the hours according to the need as it may arise.

Mr. Paget: It is not merely a question of localities; it is a question of games. For instance, there is the old ladies' bridge game which ends about tea-time; and there is the businessmen's game which is


between office-leaving and going home to dinner. Then there is the "chemmy" game, which begins about 1 o'clock. It is very difficult to have one form of hours for the lot.

Mr. Rees-Davies: That is true. I have referred to the locality, the nature of the games and circumstances of play, and we may provide different hours of play according to the local needs. I think that that replies to this point and covers everything from the bridge club and the poker club, to what I may call the real hard game. This, of course, takes into account cabaret facilities, if they are operating in an area of or adjacent to a gaming club. Therefore, whether this Clause is written into the Bill or not, I would invite the Home Secretary to consider carefully giving the Board the criteria which it would then have to consider, and leaving the decision to it.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: There is no great fundamental difference of opinion between any of the views that have been put forward by hon. Members in this connection. In moving, as I do, Amendment No. 100—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not moving the Amendment. He can speak to it, but not move it at this point.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the view that there must be some limitation of hours. There can be no question whatsoever of 24-hour gambling. Indeed, every hon. Gentleman who has spoken has made the point that there should be consideration of three jurisdictions here: that of the local licensing justices; that of the Home Secretary; and also that of the Board itself.
When this matter was dealt with in Committee the main arguments that were advanced in favour of restriction were, first, as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), that if the hours were limited it would be easier for gaming clubs to be supervised by the police and the gaming Board. Second, that it was necessary to restrict hours because

gamblers were more likely to be easy prey during the early hours of the morning when their resistance was lowered. Again, it was put that it was undesirable that gaming establishments should be open during normal working hours. It was also pleaded that the staff of gaming clubs would be caused to work excessively long hours if gaming were not limited. Lastly, it was said that it would often be uneconomical for clubs to remain open for 24 hours a day, but that unless there was a statutory restriction the competition would force them to do so.
The Government undertook to give further consideration to those arguments, and this they have done; the Amendment to Clause 21 is the result. As hon. Members will have noticed, this gives fairly wide powers to the Home Secretary to make regulations in this connection. Hon. Members will also be aware that under paragraph 22 to the Second Schedule licensing justices already have power to impose such restrictions—if any —on the hours during which gaming will be permitted to take place on the relevant premises, as appear to the authority to be necessary for the purpose of preventing disturbance or annoyance to the occupiers of other premises in the vicinity.
I would point out to the House that when the Home Secretary is exercising those powers to make regulations he has the benefit of the Board's advice. He must consult the Board under subsection (2) of Clause 49 before making regulations, and indeed, as already mentioned by the Home Secretary earlier, under subsection (3) of that same Clause he is empowered to make different provision for different areas or in relation to different cases or different circumstances to which the power is applicable.
I therefore submit that the three jurisdictions that have been referred to by hon. Members are brought into the picture and, I would submit, brought into this matter in the right order. The Home Secretary, by regulation, empowers Parliament to consider, after all, what is a matter of general social policy as far as the Tightness or wrongness of laying down the restriction is concerned, and where the broad lines should be drawn.
The Board, collating evidence that it collects, is able to submit advice to the Home Secretary and to licensing justices and within this framework the licensing justices, who have the detailed intimate knowledge, are then able to come to a proper conclusion with regard to the hours that it is proper to allow gaming to take place in any establishment.
In the circumstances, it is my submission that the provisions of new Clause 3 and new Clause 5, whilst their general motives and objectives are laudable, are rendered unnecessary on account of the provision of Amendment No. 100; Amendment No. 101 is, of course, consequential upon the new subsection that would then appear in Clause 21.

Mr. Carlisle: May I say at once that I have no intention, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ash-ford (Mr. Deedes) and myself, to attempt to push new Clause 5 to a Division and that at the appropriate moment I will ask leave to withdraw it. Equally, we on this side of the House have no possible intention of voting against Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 when we reach them, because of course, as the Undersecretary has said, our new Clause and the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and the Government Amendments really are all aimed at the same end. They are only a different— and, obviously, since we put them down we felt our ways were slightly better— means of achieving the object.
All who have spoken in this debate have agreed that we do not want 24-hour gaming. I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet, who said firmly that we do not want 24-hour gaming, that at the moment we have it in this city. To my knowledge there are at least two, and I suspect many more, clubs which are open for 24 hours a day for the purpose of gaming. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, other hon. Friends and I tried to come to a decision on what would be the right regulations to be made. We felt that there were many social arguments against 24-hour gaming and we put down these new Clauses.
Turning to the Amendments, against which we shall not divide, and the fact that we thought new Clause 5 would be

a better way of achieving the object, licensing justices will, of course, have power under the Schedule to fix the hours for any particular club, but the hours they can fix, and the grounds on which they can fix them, are considerably limited. Paragraph 22 of the Second Schedule says:
On granting or renewing a licence under this Act, the licensing authority may impose such restrictions (if any) on the hours during which gaming will be permitted to take place on the relevant premises as appear to the authority to be necessary for the purpose of preventing disturbances or annoyance to the occupiers of other premises in the vicinity.
It seems that the magistrates are to concentrate their attention on the question of hours which would effect disturbance. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will agree that in deciding the overall number of hours other matters have to be taken into consideration.
In view of what has been said, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with the suggestion that 12 out of 24 hours is adequate. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that the danger is that if one makes a maximum it becomes a minimum. That is often true, but I do not think that it will be true when licensing justices fix the maximum.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I should like the hon. Member to say how the 12 hours could be married to Clause 18, dealing with Sunday, which expressly allows at least 13 hours.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: Had we been intending to push the new Clause to a Division we would probably have put forward relevant Amendments to Clause 18 which would have been consequential. Perhaps I should reconsider my statement that 12 hours is the right maximum. Gaming clubs open morning, noon and night at a time when all honest people should be earning an honest living other than when they are on holiday, and clubs open all through the night in holiday towns where people have an opportunity of enjoying themselves in those premises during much of the evening, are not providing a great social service for the country.
Under these proposals the Home Secretary proposes to lay down regulations. I hope that he will make them wide and flexible. It would have been better if


within a limited number of hours it were left to the Board and the magistrates to decide rather than to have the matter decided by regulations. I should like the Under Secretary to answer a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. Is it true that the Board, before giving a certificate of approval, will have no say about the hours? The hon. and learned Member spoke with great conviction, but from my reading of the Bill it does not seem to be a necessary ingredient of approval that the Board should agree to the hours. It seems that the hours to be laid down by regulations are likely to be the hours, subject to local alterations, which will be permitted.
We think that it would have been more flexible if Parliament made clear that it did not approve of 24-hour gaming and left this matter to the Board rather than to the Home Secretary making an actual restriction on the hours. We are all aiming at the same end. We believe that gaming should be limited. In view of the comment of the Home Secretary earlier, when he reminded me that part of the object of the Bill is to limit opportunities for gaming, I am sorry that he has not been present in this debate. He would then have realised that hon. Members on both sides of the House are equally aware that that is the intention.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I understand that it is not within the Board's power to come to any decision in regard to hours. Under Clause 49(2), before the Home Secretary can make regulations he must consult the Board generally on the matter.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

GAMING TO WHICH PART I APPLIES

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 98, in page 1, line 12, after ' club ', insert
'or a miners' welfare institute '.
This completes a series of Amendments agreed in Committee consequent on the decision to allow miners' welfare institutes to register under Part II of the

Bill. It follows that the registered institutes, like registered clubs, should be excluded from Part I of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 99, in line 14, leave out from beginning to ' this '.
This is a drafting Amendment which gives effect to an undertaking given in Committee to the hon. Member for Run-corn (Mr. Carlisle) that the drafting of Clause 1 would be reconsidered to see if it could be simplified. The Government realise that it is unnecessary to have both the following phrases in the Clause— " Except as provided by the next following subsection ", and " Notwithstanding anything in the preceding subsection". The latter words are therefore to be omitted.

Mr. Carlisle: I thank the Undersecretary. When I moved an Amendment in Committee on this question I apologised for starting discussion on a minor drafting point. Rather to my surprise, but certainly to my pleasure, I was supported by several hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. They agreed that it is nonsensical to make Bills complicated. However much that may be to the advantage of lawyers, it is certainly not to the advantage of other people. I am glad that the Home Office, as a result of various comments made from both sides of the Committee, has agreed that what was described by the then Under-Secretary as the traditional means of drafting a Bill need not necessarily always exist and that Amendments to simplify the Bill could be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

NATURE OF GAME

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 150, in page 2 line 9, leave out ' have effect in relation' and insert 'apply '.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendment No. 151.

Mr. Carlisle: This was another attempt which I made by an Amendment in Committee to try to simplify the wording of


the Bill. It is an effort to delete four words and substitute one word. The Clause, at line 9, states:
The preceding subsection shall not have effect in relation to gaming which takes place … and shall not have effect in relation to any gaming where the gaming takes place in a hostel, …
It would be far simpler and more understandable English if the words " have effect in relation " on both occasions were omitted, and the word " apply " substituted. The Clause would then read:
 The preceding subsection shall not apply to gaming …
On the other drafting Amendments I moved in Committee the Home Secretary gave an undertaking to look at them, and he has been good enough on Report to bring back Amendments to carry them out. On this occasion he said that he would look at it, but he has not brought back an Amendment of his own, and I hope that he will be willing to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am sorry that the Government are not able to accommodate the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is just as well to show that there are limits even to the generosity of the Home Office. The Government are, however, grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his efforts to improve the drafting of subsection (2).
Clause 1 says what gaming in Part I applies to. Clause 2(1) refers to
gaming to which this Part of this Act applies 
To refer to a form of gaming to which Part I does apply is merely to cause confusion in the mind of the reader. We are dealing with two quite different concepts, and the two different expressions are not only justified but necessary. The point was raised in Committee, we agreed to consider it and we have done so, but we have come to the conclusion that the Clause is best left as it is.

Mr. Carlisle: In view of the excellent explanation of the Under-Secretary, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendments, and accept that the apparently excessively lengthy drifting is still necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO GAMING ON PREMISES LICENSED FOR RETAIL SALE OF LIQUOR

Dame Joan Vickers: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 24, after 'dominoes', insert:
' whist, solo whist, bridge, nap, euchre, rummy'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 4.

Dame Joan Vickers: The purpose of the Amendments is to allow in public houses the playing of whist, solo whist, bridge, nap, euchre and rummy. These games are played only with very small stakes, very often for a pint of beer or a few pence. I understand that at present the licensee may apply to the local authority for permission for these games to be played.
This is an innocent request, and these games should be permitted, particularly whist, solo whist and rummy. They are played now, and I only hope that those who play them will not be caught! It is very much better that this should be above-board rather than that the games should be played illegally. Perhaps the Home Secretary will agree to this request, which will give a great deal of pleasure to those who play for small stakes.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I want to add one word of agreement with regard to these delightful games. Would the Undersecretary, later on, be good enough to turn up the debate which took place when the then Home Secretary, now Lord Butler, inserted dominoes and cribbage into our laws? There was a violent reaction everywhere, since the names of games are never put into an Act of Parliament, because the game and its rules can be changed. This was one of the " sacred cows " of the Home Office. Lord Butler would have none of that, and he walked across to the Box and said, " I am writing dominoes and cribbage into this." There was a frightful scream everywhere, but he did it, and I do not think that great harm has come to us as a result.
It would, therefore, have been possible to have written in euchre, solo whist and


other games but, as they have not been written in, may I mention that dominoes can be played for a lot of money, and it is possible to get into endless trouble by not playing it as it is normally played in a public house. With whist one can get into worse trouble. Clause 6(3) provides that
… the licensing justices for the licensing district … in which the premises are situated may by order authorise the playing on those premises of a game specified in the order, other than dominoes and cribbage.
This would, of course, provide for the other games which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) mentioned. The body to give advice on gaming is the Gaming Board. Whether those particular games can be played and the conditions under which they can be played, I would respectfully suggest, is not a subject for an Amendment here but in another place. Consideration could be given to the insertion of the words
after consultation with or on the advice of the Gaming Board 
so that these additional games may be permitted. The Board can say what they are, and the Board can lay down the rules. In that way there will be an accepted game to the rules as laid down, and there will be no difficulties with high gaming.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: It was not on account of an appreciation of a great and terrible peril confronting society that Clause 6 was drafted so as to refer only to dominoes and cribbage. As has been said by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), it was on account of the tradition and general popularity of these two games, and because they were specified in Section 35 of the 1963 Act, that they have been given an absolute right which has not been extended to other games. The principle of the Amendment is to add to this specification.
I do not think that I could disagree about any of the games which are mentioned in the three Amendments now under consideration, but neither could we disagree on account of three, 13 or 30 other games. Where is the line to be drawn? If we are to include whist, solo whist, bridge, nap, euchre and rummy, why should we discriminate against snap

and happy families? I believe that we should accept what has been an absolute right with regard to dominoes and cribbage since 1963 and refrain from specifying an absolute right for any of the other games that might be included.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet that this is a matter for the Gaming Board, with its already very heavy duties, to consider. After all, the local popularity of a game is a matter which is properly within the province of the licensing justices. They are the people who have been vested with jurisdiction in the matter by Clause 6.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

GAMING TO WHICH PART II APPLIES

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 108, in page 7, leave out line 4.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, we are taking Amendments Nos. 109 and 110.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: These are preparing the way for Amendments which remove from clubs or institutes licensed or registered under Part II the right to promote non-commercial entertainments under Clause 40 or to provide amusements with prizes in the form of games of the fairground type either as incidents to non-commercial bazaars, dinners, dances, etc., under Section 48 of the Betting, Gaming and Loteries Act, 1963, or commercially under Section 49 of that Act. Licensed clubs are permitted by new Clause 2 to provide gaming with prizes on conditions comparable to those applying to amusements with prizes under Section 49 of the 1963 Act. The significant difference here is that this is to be treated as a form of gaming under Part II and not left to be governed by a separate code of law.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 109, in page 7, line 11, leave out from beginning to 'gaming' in line 13 and insert ' and which is not'.

No. 110, in line 14, leave out from ' applies ' to end of line 18.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 12

WHO MAY PARTICIPATE IN GAMING TO WHICH PART II APPLIES

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 8, line 22, leave out from ' licence' to ' or' in line 28 and insert:
' who, at the time when he begins to take part in the gaming, is eligible to take part in it'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are taking Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 14, 15 and 30.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The first three Amendments provide an alternative procedure by which members and their guests can qualify to take part in gaming on any premises for the purposes of Clause 12. As it stands, subsection (2) provides that a person may not take part in gaming at licensed premises unless he is a member of the club specified in the licence and was admitted to membership in pursuance of an application made in person at those premises, and at least 48 hours have elapsed between the time of making application and the time when he resorts to gaming, or that he is a bona fide guest of a person so entitled to play on the premises.
That rule has been relaxed by Clause 20(2) with regard to bingo. In the case of bingo, applications for membership of a club need not be made in person and the period which has to elapse between acceptance to membership and gaming is 24 hours instead of 48.
As for casinos, the requirement of application in person at the premises followed by a 48-hour interval is intended as a check on impulse gaming and to give the licensee a proper opportunity of scrutinising intending players. After all, it is very much in the interests of the licensee that he should do this, because he can be answerable for the behaviour of players with his licence.
The difficulty about Clause 12 arises in the case of a club which has more than one club house, and very substantially in the case of a member who perhaps a very long time ago became a member otherwise than by personal application at the premises where he wishes to play. In order to qualify under Clause 12 as it stands at the moment,

he would have to resort to the procedure of resigning from the club and making a fresh application for membership at those premises. To get over this difficulty, these Amendments provide an alternative procedure whereby a person who is already a member of the club can give notice in writing or in person at the premises and so qualify. By qualifying himself, of course, a bona fide guest of his would qualify in the same way.
The Amendment to Clause 45, which deals with the service of documents, is consequential. The normal provisions applying to notices sent or given under the Bill are not appropriate to the notices of intent to be given under the Amendments to Clause 12.

Mr. Buck: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. This recasting is very sensible. However, I am not sure that I understand him entirely. The position of existing members of clubs, as I understand it, is that they will not be required to make any re-application in person.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: That is so, provided that notice in writing is sent. Under the original provision, there was no obligation to make application in writing, although in practice that would have happened. Now, notice in writing must be given 48 hours before gaming is permitted.

Mr. Buck: No doubt my noble friends is another place will wish to investigate further. It seems to be a somewhat cumbrous way of dealing with those who are already members of clubs to ensure that they make the further application which I understand will now be necessary.
One other point which I would draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention is a matter which I raised in Committee. There, we were given certain assurances about the position where premises were moved and a club changed from being a club in, say, one part of London to one in another part. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman's predecessor said:
 We will certainly consider the first of these two Amendments. If it is a question of drafting and of moving premises, we will consider it. But I hope that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) will leave the drafting to the draftsmen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 14th March, 1968; c. 238.]


The Amendment that I put forward in Committee was to ensure that we did not have an absurd situation arising whereby Crockford's or any other gaming establishment moved from one set of premises to another and all the members having to reapply on the new premises. This matter was raised in Committee and I hope that it has been dealt with somewhere in the whole of this Clause or those which we are considering with it.
It is clearly a matter highly apposite to the Amendment we are considering, dealing with applications for membership, that Amendment No. 7 says that the application has to be made in person on the premises besides being in writing. This is the wording at the moment. This would apply if a club changed its premises.
I am still doubtful whether it is appropriate to make it obligatory for a person, before he becomes a member of a club of the character we are considering, to make the application in person on the premises. The arguments do not carry great validity. It seems absurd that a foreign visitor passing through London cannot write to a club and give a couple of sponsors, a proposer and seconder, for his membership and thereby become a club member. This may be possible under the existing situation, but I do not think that it is.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look at that again between now and the Bill going to another place if he does not wish to deal with it straight away. I can appreciate his difficulties. He has not lived with the Bill as long as some of us, although he has impressed us with his knowledge of the detail of it. These are small technical points, but they are appropriate to be raised on Report stage. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to deal with them. If not, we shall understand, and we hope they will be dealt with in another place at a later stage.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: There are three points. First, I believe that these Amendments cover the case where the club has moved to other premises. Secondly, the main purpose of this 48-hours or 24-hours provision is to prevent impulsive gambling. This is probably as potent a factor as any others contained in the Bill dedicated to the containment of gaming.

Thirdly, concerning foreign visitors, as has been said by my predecessor, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), it is certainly not intended and not desired that the United Kingdom should be the Mecca of international gamblers. Therefore, foreigners coming to Britain are treated in this respect in the same way as British nationals.

Mr. Rees-Davies: A considerable number of foreign visitors do gamble here. First, do I take it that if the secretary of a club sends a notice to its existing overseas members that is enough and they have nothing else to do.
Secondly, is there any objection to the member, when he is overseas, making his application in writing to become a member of the club and having his membership sent to him?
It is not helpful to go into all this Mecca business. I think it is an unfortunate word to choose, because it is one of the most respected establishments that has been advising so many hon. Members in the House. It is a very important potential tourist factor in the world today that there are these facilities available in London to people coming from overseas. It is absolutely right that they should be governed by the same law as ourselves. I am entirely against the argument that there should be a separate law for foreigners than for the British. But we must be assured that it is enough for existing members if they have written notice and that they can apply in writing to become members. I should like some elucidation, because I am not clear about the position on those two points.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 6, in page 8, line 30, leave out from 'who' to end of line 35 and insert
'at the time when the guest begins to take part in the gaming, is eligible to take part in it'.

No. 7, in page 8, line 38, at end insert:
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section a member of the club specified in the licence is eligible to take part in the gaming at any particular time if either—

(a) he was admitted to membership of the club in pursuance of an application in writing made by him in person on the premises in question, and at that time at least forty-eight hours have elapsed since he applied for membership of the club, or


(b) since becoming a member of the club he has: given notice in writing in person on those premises to the holder of the licence, or to a person acting on behalf of the holder of the licence, of his intention to take part in gaming on those premises, and at that time at least forty-eight hours have elapsed since he gave that notice.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 16

PROVISION OF CREDIT FOR GAMING

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 8, in page 11, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert:

(2) Neither the holder of the licence nor any person acting on his behalf or under any arrangement with him shall accept a cheque and give in exchange for it cash or tokens for enabling any person to take part in the gaming unless the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—

(a)the cheque is not a post-dated cheque, and
(b)it is exchanged for cash to an amount equal to the amount for which it is drawn, or is exchanged for tokens at the same rate as would apply if cash, to the amount for which the cheque is drawn, were given in exchange for them;
but, where those conditions are fulfilled, the giving of cash or tokens in exchange for a cheque shall not be taken to contravene subsection (1) of this section.

The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify Clause 16(2) so that it operates directly instead of by reference to subsection (1).

There is no substantial change in the purpose of the subsection, which is to make it clear that, notwithstanding the prohibitions of credit contained in subsection (1), cheques may be accepted in exchange for money or chips to be used in gaming on two conditions and not otherwise, namely,

"(a) the cheque is not a post-dated cheque, and
(b) it is exchanged for cash to an amount equal to the amount for which it is drawn, or is exchanged for tokens at the same rate as would apply if cash, to the amount for which the cheque is drawn, were given in exchange for them."

That is the purpose of the Amendment. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Buck: This Amendment is a tidier way of effecting the concession relating

to the giving of cheques for chips which was set out in the Bill as originally drafted in a somewhat untidy way. This is an appropriate concession to make, but we should pause to consider what we are doing, because this is of some importance. We are now allowing cheques which are given not quite for the purpose of gaming but for the purpose of obtaining tokens whereby gaming can result to be enforceable. This is a change of some significance.
I must tell the House that my previous master, if I may so describe him, the late Sir John Hobson, for whom so many on both sides had the greatest respect, and I certainly had when I served as his Parliamentary Private Secretary, took the view that this was probably not an appropriate concession to make. I was in the unusual position of disagreeing with him concerning this matter. The main reason why I think it is right that we should have an Amendment such as that before us is that if we allow, with the limitations imposed by the new draft of the appropriate Clause, the enforce-ability of cheques given for chips, we are going some way to lessening the likelihood of strong-arm methods being adopted.
In the past, a person who has gone into a gaming establishment and presented a cheque for, say, £50 and received £50 worth of chips and thereafter has stopped the cheque has caused a certain amount of strong-arm methods to be indulged in by disreputable clubs to get back the money on the dishonoured cheque. Therefore, this seems an appropriate concession to make. I need not weary the House with the details of the differences of this Clause from the way it was effected in the earlier Bill. It is sufficient to say that it seems—and on this occasion I have done quite a bit of homework—to be a tidier way of effecting that which was effected earlier in a less tidy way.
That is is right that there should be limitations on the concession so that the cheque is not a post-dated cheque is self-evidently right; and that the amount given for the cheque in tokens should be directly relative to the cash from which the cheque is made out is again sensible and right. Otherwise, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, a concealed profit could be made in that a charge could be


made for cashing a cheque which similarly would be inappropriate. Therefore, we on this side welcome the simpler and tidier way of effecting a concession which, on the whole, we feel is an appropriate one to make.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

EXCLUSION OF PERSONS UNDER 18

Further Amendment made: No. 111, in page 12, line 1, after '20', insert ' or section (Special provisions as to gaming for prizes)'.

Clause 19

APPROVAL BY BOARD OF CERTAIN PERSONS CONNECTED WITH GAMING

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 13, line 27, after ' section ', insert 'and'.
I should offer a word of explanation, because this is a very important Amendment. The Amendments which, if it is agreeable to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we would discuss are not only Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12, but also Amendments Nos. 77, 79, 80 and 81.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe that that would be convenient.

Mr. Callaghan: Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are related here and Amendments Nos. 77, 79, 80 and 81 are those concerning Schedule 5. If hon. Gentlemen will look at that they will see that these Amendments carry the same principle into the Schedules as I am about to enunciate on Clause 19. This is a significant Amendment which arises out of a concession given in Committee and in which the Government have been substantially influenced by the Committee.
I am asking Parliament to remove the right of appeals to me in respect of the issue and revocation of certificates and decisions by the Board. These Amendments would remove from the Home Secretary appeals to him against decisions of the Gaming Board. Such decisions could, of course, concern refusal or revocation of a certificate of approval to

gaming operatives, managers, organisers or supervisers in licensed clubs. The Board's decisions on these matters—and this is the most important sentence that I have to utter—lawfully arrived at, will be final and there will be no appeal to me from its decision.
I wish to bring this out fully to the House. The change is consistent with provisions to be introduced by Amendments which I will later move to Schedule 2, whereby all applications for licences are to be subject to certificates of consent by the Board which will also be entitled, in certain circumstances, to revoke such certificate and, therefore, to render a licence void.
I point out that the Board's decision is to be final. It would be out of keeping for an individual employee to enjoy rights of appeal denied to a licence holder. I heard the discussion on this in the Committee and was influenced and, indeed, converted by it. I will not go deeply into the philosophy, because it was discussed in Committee, but this provision emphasises the Board's authority. No one has a right to engage in commercial gaming. This is the effect of the Amendment. The Board's decision will be final, which means I must take very great care in the persons I appoint to carry out these responsibilities; and I am now considering this matter in order to find the right people.
Obviously, there will be discussions on this matter in the House from time to time, but the view of both sides of the Committee, which I have accepted, was that appeals to the Secretary of State from the Board's decisions would diffuse a responsibility that ought to be kept concentrated, and might bring such decisions within reach of political pressures which is something to which I am sure I nor any of my successors would wish to be subjected.
That is what this group of Amendments is about. They are technical only in the sense that they are carrying through this intention in the Clause and the Schedules.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The Home Secretary has said, I believe rightly, that this is a very important question. I entirely agree with the view that he has expressed in principle. I want to speak about a


very important matter which is not included directly within the Amendment although it is implicit in it—the need for immediate power of suspension under Clause 19; because this has, as yet, still been overlooked. I believe that a little time of the House ought to be taken on this Amendment, and that so that the public should fully realise what Parliament is doing under Clause 19 we ought to get the situation clear.
My own view, which I expressed to his predecessor in the Home Office about 18 months ago, before the Bill was published was that, first of all, there must be a Gaming Board; secondly, that the Board should have full executive power; and, thirdly, that if it was to have that power it must be given the initial responsibility of considering whether there shall be a consent certificate. I will say no more on that because we will deal with it on Schedule 2 and others.
Under Schedule 5, if we are to have some control at the inception of gaming then, equally, the Board must have power of revocation of that control. I have always taken the view, which is shared in France, Belgium and many other civilised European countries and in the United States of America as well, that there is not an inherent right to have a licensed establishment for gaming, and that it is a privilege. It is not the same as a public house or even the same as a betting office, although the Betting Licensing Committee has been given the power.
I personally would not have given it. It would have gone further and taken the matter to the Board, subject to certain rights and certain other forms of control which it would be out of order for me to develop now. But I feel strongly that if we are to pursue this course then not only must the Board have the initial power of refusal, but also complete power over withdrawal or revocation. Why do I say this?
8 p.m.
There are certain establishments in London, of which, if necessary, I can give notice to the Home Secretary, which are undesirable. They are undesirable because, in the first place, they use outside collaborators to collect their debts. Those outside collaborators are the protection racketeers in London. They are the men who go and insist, if I may use the phrase, on the payment of certain debts.

It is very difficult to pinpoint or to prove these matters up to the hilt when subject to judicial control, because those who can give the information are not willing to do so in a court of law. They are too frightened to do so.
There is one particular club I know of which colleagues in the House, to my certain knowledge, have visited quite recently. It would not be easy, in the atmosphere of a court, to tackle with certainty the question whether this particular club and those particular directors should be permitted to have a grant or not.
The same position applies on revocation. It is extremely difficult to establish in a court of law whether cheating has taken place in a club. It is almost impossible to prove with absolute certainty whether electronic instruments have been used to defeat the natural play of machines. In the United States it has become almost impossible to prove the use of electronic controls for cheating at roulette except by putting in the people whom it is necessary to feed into the establishment to give the requisite kind of advice to lead to prosecution. I therefore think that if the paraphernalia of effective control is to be given to the Board, it must not only decide in advance the cases which it will refuse, but it must have complete control over revocation.
That leads me to what is perhaps my most important point, and one with which I ask the Minister to deal. Let us suppose that in certain premises there is some cheating or misconduct in the evening. There appears to be no power for the inspector to suspend the employee concerned forthwith, and, in a bad case, to suspend the operation of the club that evening. I am not referring to the power to revoke, but if there is a really serious complaint, and it is shown, or admitted, that evening that the croupier has been engaging in misconduct, surely there must be a power to suspend forthwith the operation of play at those tables?

Mr. Buck: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if certain Amendments which have been tabled by this side of the House to various parts of the Schedule were accepted that power would be available? The issue does not, however, arise so much on these Amendments.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend, and when we come to those


Amendments we may have an opportunity to elaborate the position.
What both sides of the House recognise is the necessity for a form of relatively arbitrary rule which would not be permitted in any other respect, purely because of the dangers inherent in gaming and gambling. It is because of this that the House is willing to give the Board these special powers.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Home Secretary when he says that he has a grave responsibility to see that his appointees, particularly the chairman and others, are of the highest calibre. I hope that he will bear in mind what was said in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) about the need for the inspectorate to be of high calibre, and well paid.
It is suggested that there will be about 15 inspectors. I think that in due course the Home Secretary will probably want about double that number, because, when he studies the problem with the police, I doubt whether he will find that they want to engage very much in the enforcement of gambling—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not obvious to me what that has to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Under the Clause we are giving the Board arbitrary powers. These powers will be exercised by the inspectorate which is to be appointed, and I am saying that if we give such arbitrary powers, it is essential that those who wield them, to wit the inspectorate and the other officers appointed, are of the highest calibre.
I welcome the Amendment. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to obtain the right type of people. I believe that he will. If he does and if he works along the broad lines of drawing on people with a great sense of public service, and a chairman who knows a fair amount about gaming, in the same way as people are appointed to the Turf and Jockey Clubs, and so on, he will have a successful Act.

Mr. Buck: As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is an important Amendment which, taken with the other Amendments, gives the Board consider-

able arbitrary powers relating to the categories of persons who are employed in connection with gaming. That is my understanding of the position, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong.
The Amendment is confined to the employees of gaming clubs. In particular, to take the most obvious example, a croupier has to be licensed. He has to receive the Board's accolade as to his bona fides. He has to establish that he is an appropriate person to be a croupier. He has to do that by way of his antecedents. A person in that position has enormous opportunities for corruption, for taking money from his employers, for defrauding people at the casino, and so on. We have always thought it right that the Board should have power to approve such a person before he has the right to hold what is described as an operating certificate.
By the Amendment the serious step is taken of saying that such a person has no right of appeal against a decision by the Board that he should not be allowed to operate as a croupier. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has reservations about giving the Board arbitrary powers of that kind. My first predilection is against giving anybody arbitrary powers to deprive someone of the right to earn his livelihood. That is my basic prejudice, and I imagine that it is shared by the Home Secretary, but after deep thought I take the view that in the exceptional circumstances with which we are dealing here it is right to arm the Board with this considerable power. One does not like the Star Chamber atmosphere, or giving any body of people the power to deprive a person of his living, but in these circumstances it is right to do so.
It may not be possible in a court of law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person who wants to act as a croupier has behaved in a criminal way, but evidence may well be available to the Board which will satisfy it that the person concerned is not appropriate to be a croupier because of the additional temptations, and because of the fantastic opportunities for making illicit gains. The Board will have the power to say, if the person concerned has a bad record, if he has behaved in a way which leads the


Board to suppose that he may be dishonest, " Thou shall not have an operating certificate ". On balance I think that that is right.
I have always put forward the view that it is right for the Board to be armed with considerable powers of regulation, and I think that it would be inappropriate to go off that line now, because the Amendment goes as far as I would be prepared to go. At a later stage we shall be discussing a group of Amendments which will deprive retailers of gaming machines of the right of appeal. I shall reserve my position as to whether they are in the same category as employees of casinos and so on. It may be going too far, but I shall wait to hear what the Government have to say.
This probably goes as far as it should. I would have been against the Amendment had not concessions been made over the classification of employees who may have an " operating certificate ". Large numbers of those employed in bingo clubs, other than those actually operating the apparatus, will not now have to have such a certificate. Without that concession, I would have been more reluctant to allow the Board these powers.
We are dealing here with spheres of activity which I do not go along with the right hon. Gentleman in describing as evil. I do not think that a modest game of craps or a few pounds spent on roulette is evil, but there are forces at work in certain aspects of gaming which will make it necessary for the Board to be able to act quickly and sometimes arbitrarily. We must realise that we are providing the Board with considerable arbitrary powers, but on balance we are right to do so.

Mr. Deedes: I was glad that the Home Secretary expressed awareness of the gravity of this Amendment, since we will probably deal with none graver. He has given himself a major instrument of control, the most effective in the Bill, because, where there is no appeal, if a man falls below a standard set by the Board, that is the end of the story and that is the only way to operate in this field. There are aspects of this which make it, objectionable though it may seem, essential. One, of course, is the manner in which the Board will acquire its information, since it is bound to be

privy to a good deal of information which it may share with the police and, I hope, with the proprietors, but which at its highest, will be circumstantial rather than conclusive.
The Under-Secretary put his finger on it in Committee when he said:
 There may be all sorts of occasions on which an operative has been guilty of behaviour of an undesirable kind which does not amount to an offence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 19th March, 1968; c. 285.]
That is what we are talking about, and we are producing something unique in English statute. Someone who is not guilty of an offence but none the less has an unsavoury "aroma" will be able to be dealt with by the Board without appeal. I am not saying that this is wrong. Those of us who have been trying to get more powers for the Board cannot now say that the right hon. Gentleman has overdone it, but to fire on suspicion is one thing and it is quite another to exclude someone from a walk of life on suspicion, as we will do here.
How much this will depend on circumstantial evidence was made clear to those of us who have talked to proprietors of these clubs. The fact is that one rarely has conclusive evidence of misconduct by croupiers and so on. It is nearly always suspicion.
8.15 p.m.
I do not say this in derogation of the Amendment, but I do not think it will survive in its present form. When the Board has got going, it will have to provide, I think, on its own behalf, some additional safeguard for the individual. It will not involve us, but I am certain that it will have to happen. Although we have good reason for doing it, we have overstepped the mark, and when the Board has been operating for some time I believe that it will discover that the weight of responsibility imposed on it by the decisions which it will have to take about certain individuals will be more than it wishes to carry. I think that the Board will say to the Home Secretary at an early stage, " This is not quite what we need or can bear," and will produce some amendment, so that this will not last in its present form. The Board will have to preserve some safeguard for the individual.
At one stroke we have built up the Board to what we now know it ought


to be. It has been given powers over individuals and will have to be of a different calibre to the Board we were discussing on Second Reading. We cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman to give us any clearer picture of the Board, but the bearing of this on its composition, and its relations with the Home Secretary and Parliament, is very considerable. I hope that before we part with the Bill the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some idea of the composition and status of this body to which we are giving such considerable powers.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). I do not have to demonstrate my bona fides, since it was in my Bill that the powers of the Board were originally watered down, but I was overturned in Committee by hon. Members on both sides. Now, the House is rightly saying that we must be careful of individual rights. If the Board comes to me saying, " We want to devise a different form of procedure along the lines which the right hon. Gentleman described", it will not find me unsympathetic, because I hope that I have as deep a sense of the rights of the individual as any other hon. Member. We must be careful what we are doing here, but there is no doubt that the analogy with corresponding boards in other fields was weighty, and I accepted it.
I give the assurance now, as I did originally, that, first, I want a good Board and, second, that if it wants to propose to me alterations which will preserve additional rights I shall consider them sympathetically, knowing—I think that I have a feeling about the House—that the House will want me to do that in the end.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 10, in page 13, line 28, leave out from 'certificates' to end of line 30.

No. 11, in page 13, line 32, leave out from ' approval' to 'shall' in line 33.

No. 12, in page 13, line 37, leave out from ' section' to end of line 40.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Clause 20

SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO BINGO CLUBS

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 123, in page 14, line 6, leave out 'section' and insert ' Part of this Act'.
This is a drafting Amendment, required as a consequence of the use of the term " bingo club premises", not only in this Clause but in new Clause 2, which has now been inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 14, line 9, at end insert:

(2) Where a game of bingo is played simultaneously on different bingo club premises in circumstances where—

(a)all the players take part in the same game at the same time and all are present at that time on one or other of those premises, and
(b)the draw takes place on one or other of those premises while the game is being played, and
(c)any claim of one of the players to have won is indicated to all the other players before the next number is called,
then, if the conditions specified in the next following subsection are fulfilled, section 12(1) of this Act shall have effect in relation to that game as if those different premises were the same premises.

(2A) The conditions referred to in subsection (2) of this section, in relation to a game of bingo played simultaneously on different premises, are that—

(a)the aggregate amount paid to players as winnings in respect of that game does not exceed the aggregate amount of the stakes hazarded by the players in playing that game, and
(b)the aggregate amount paid to players as winnings in respect of that game, together with the aggregate amount paid to players as winnings in respect of all games of bingo which, in the circumstances specified in that subsection, have previously been played in the same week and have been so played on premises consisting of, or including any of, those premises, does not exceed £1,000.

(2B) Where subsection (2) of this section has effect in relation to a game of bingo played simultaneously on different premises, then, for the purposes of the application of subsections (2) and (3) of section 12 of this Act in relation to each of those premises, regard shall be had only to such of the players as are present on those particular premises.

Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 17, in page 14, line 24, at beginning insert:
'Without prejudice to the operation (where applicable) of subsections (2) to (2B) of this section';
and Amendment No. 18, in page 14, line 25, at end insert 'particular'.

Amendment No. 13 is a substantial one, and represents a concession which I was invited to make by the Committee. Although I may not have gone as far as the Committee wanted, it is a concession on the original Bill. Clause 12(1), by providing that no one shall participate in gaming if he is not present on the premises at the time that the gaming takes place, prohibits the practice of "linked bingo". Linked bingo is a relatively new phenomenon. It is a game in which a number of clubs join together with the object of increasing the totality of the stakes and so the value of the prizes to be derived from them. It was represented in Committee that these linked games between different clubs should be allowed, but subject to the strict limit—which the Minister of State to the Treasury, when Under-Secretary gave—that no club might in a single week join in linked games in which the aggregate of the total prizes exceeded £1,000.

When I was discussing bingo on Second Reading I was not thinking of these linked games. There is a lesson to be learned here about the speed with which these things can mushroom. I watch one club each week to see what is happening. I will not identify it. There is no doubt that both the size and scale of the operations are increasing quite rapidly and that the harmless game of housey-housey which I played in the Andrew and which I thought, when I was speaking about bingo on Second Reading, was a harmless family game is not the same as the game which one now finds in operation. My education has certainly been improved in this regard. Should I say that it has been improved or worsened?

The Amendment is designed to confine the concession to clubs which are licensed for bingo alone. To prevent constant pressure being brought to bear to increase the stipulated maximum of £1,000, the customary power to vary limits of this kind by regulation has been deliberately omitted by me. Linked bingo

—I say something controversial now, but I believe it to be true—has developed in defiance of the spirit of the 1963 Act. Some would argue that it has also developed in defiance of the letter of that Act. It has developed so as to attract players by prizes which are higher than any one club could hope to produce from its attendances. It converts bingo from a moderate and relatively innocuous game of a neighbourly kind, which is what it was, into a large-scale activity in which many thousands of people who have never met, who do not know one another and who are never likely to know one another, compete for prizes which are far from moderate and which tend all the time to increase with the additional linkages that go on.

It has far less of the character of gaming than of a lottery; and one run entirely for the profit of private promoters for prizes far in excess of the very small sums allowed under the 1963 Act, under which the total value of tickets or chances may not exceed £750. Bingo played on a single club's premises is as much a lottery as gaming, but, in so far as it conforms to the laws relating to gaming, the 1963 Act frees it from the prohibition of lotteries contained in that Act.

On the standard which I have been discussing—of clubs joining together to give reasonable prizes—the maximum of £1,000 is a generous one. I know that this is disputed by some, but only the very largest clubs can expect an attendance of 4,000 people and the level of staking is well below the average of 5s. per person which I have adopted for this calculation.

The new subsection (2) lays down the essential elements. All the players must be present on premises licensed for bingo and the draw must take place on those premises during the game so that the whole of the activity can be kept under the surveillance of the enforcing authorities. Any claim by a player that he has won must be indicated to all the other players before the next number is called. This must be done simultaneously. It can be done by various relaying devices, closed television circuits and so on. If clubs cannot devise such means, they have no need to take up these games.

It is not sufficient that games should be played separately in different premises,


with the proceedings timed and recorded so as to determine the prize winners. I understand that this is called "The Golden Scoop", which has already been declared by the courts to be illegal because it does not constitute gaming. It is necessary, therefore, to insist on the principle of simultaneous play if that activity is to be given any colour of gaming; otherwise the concession would trespass outside the sphere of gaming.

Mr. Buck: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to help small clubs. He must be aware that this is impracticable, that it will kill the linked game and that it will therefore be of no assistance whatever to the small club.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know that at all. Indeed, we will probably find linked games going on. I have no doubt that already discussions are taking place between those who are primarily concerned to see how they can meet the proposals contained in the new subsection. The hon. Gentleman underestimates both their desire to do this and their ingenuity in findings ways and means of doing it.
The new subsection (2A) contains the conditions to be applied to linked games. These are that all stakes must be returned in winnings and that the aggregate prizes in a game, together with the aggregate of any previous games played in the same week, must not exceed £1,000 in the same licensed premises. This seems a realistic prize, on the basis on which we have, as a Committee and in the House, drawn up specially relaxed regulations to cover bingo.
When I introduced the Bill I made it clear then that I did not wish to insist on the same harsh provisions to be applied to bingo as to gaming. It is important, when drawing up rules, that we should preserve the essential character of the game of bingo as I understood it, as I still understand it and as I would like to see it played. If it is to develop into really big business, the operations of the gaming laws must apply. But if it is kept broadly along the lines which I have indicated, and which represent a substantial concession to points of view put forward, then I believe that we shall be both meeting the desires of the pro-

moters as well as preserving for the public the sort of safeguards which are necessary in this matter.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Buck: It is interesting to hear the latest version of the Home Secretary's view of bingo. Apparently since Second Reading he has learned about linked bingo and now believes that it is no longer a cosy family game. Earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) referred to the right hon. Gentleman's naivety. It might seem presumptuous of me to do likewise, but I must say that I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have so altered his view of bingo since learning about the linked form of the game.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman drew a clear distinction between bingo—which he described as essentially a harmless family game—and hard gaming. I am sure that he is right to draw a complete distinction between bingo and hard gaming. On the whole, it is hard gaming which we have up to now been considering, and we have been dealing with the small numbers of people who indulge in hard gaming and staking relatively large sums, and some of those people perhaps become compulsive gamblers and ruin themselves.
But now, with bingo, we are dealing with an enormous number of people. No fewer than 8 to 10 million of the people of this country are members of bingo clubs and play bingo with a greater or lesser degree of regularity, but they are staking only very small stakes—6s. to 8s. during the course of an evening, as the Home Secretary talked about. That is about the average figure. In Colchester, it is marginally higher. In the major bingo hall there the average stake is slightly higher at around 10s. It is a sign, perhaps, of the healthy financial position people achieved in what are called by some the 13 wasted years.
However, this is totally different from hard gambling, for we have 8 to 10 million people playing bingo regularly and enjoying it, but it is not a family game, and it is surprising that the Home Secretary should apparently seriously think that it is, as he said on Second Reading that it was. He called it a family game, but I do not think that was an appropriate description. If, as he says,


he keeps an eye regularly on one bingo club he might have thought it an odd description to call it a family game— when finding several thousands of people playing it in what was once a cinema. But though not a family game, it is an innocuous game.
Are we being sensible by eliminating the linked game of bingo? In my submission, that is precisely what the Amendment would do; it would, in effect, eliminate the linked game. How did the Home Secretary arrive at this figure of £1,000 a week? We asked in Committee for information about this. What scientific evidence is there that this is the appropriate and right figure? Or has somebody in the Home Office just taken a figure and doubled it or halved it? What basis is there for suggesting that this is the right figure? Why do we want to eliminate the linked game at all?
Is there any evidence that the linked game has been carried on in a corrupt way? I have never heard any such suggestion. I have heard suggestions about punctured ping-pong balls in bingo halls —small halls; but I have not heard about it in relation to the big, reputable people. I know from personal experience that at the local bingo hall the equipment is every night scrutinised by the regulars with quite amazing attention, and people are brought on the stage to examine it.
There could be no opportunity, in my view, in a major bingo hall for any corruption, and certainly not within the linked game, for which, under the Bill, we provide an added safeguard, because there will be the overall supervision of the Gaming Board. Is there any appropriate evidence that there has ever been anything corrupt about the linked game? I suggest, no.
If the Home Secretary is worried—and I think that there may appropriately be some cause for concern here—about the escalation of the amount, let us have a reasonable amount, not £1,000 a week, which will make the thing totally uneconomic and absurd. I would suggest that the appropriate criterion for the limit on the amount should be, that it should be not one who disrupts a person's life, which alters the whole pattern of his life —not the sort of amount which can be won on the football pools or which, no doubt, will be able to be won on the

national lottery in due course. The amount should be one which constitutes a pleasant windfall out of which a person can pay off the mortgage on his house or buy a new car.
In an Amendment to this Amendment, which is not being called, we have suggested winnings of £1,000 in one game. I put forward an Amendment in Committee for £3,000. Some of my more puritanical colleagues persuaded me that £1,000 might be more appropriate. I agree with limiting the sum to £1,000 for a single winning, but setting a limit of £1,000 in a week is not practical. I think that it will mean that there will be no linked game of bingo in the future.
The Home Secretary will not help the small bingo halls by the Amendment. The requirement under subsection (2)(c) that any claim of one of the players to have won is indicated to all the others before the next number is called will make expensive machinery necessary. If the small halls could overcome the difficulty of finding a practical way of meeting that requirement the amount they could give through a linked prize could be very small over a week. It would be nowhere near the sort of prizes which could still be paid out by the big bingo halls, where at present several hundreds of pounds are paid out on the principal game in an evening in some halls.
I am bitterly disappointed at the so-called concession, because it will do no good. It will provide no help for the small bingo hall and will probably benefit the larger operator instead. By limiting the amount of the prize to such an absurdly low sum the Home Secretary is taking the "go" out of bingo. He is taking a lot of excitement and zip out of it. In the hall where I have seen bingo played in my constituency I have watched large numbers of people enjoying themselves extremely innocently. When the linked game comes up there is an intensification of the atmosphere, an excitement which I do not consider harmful.
The Home Secretary says that he does not want to encourage people to play bingo so much.

Mr. Callaghan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Buck: If the right hon. Gentleman says that I am wrong to suggest that, why does not he allow the halls to


advertise? I understood that he wanted to keep down the level of bingo-playing. If I am wrong, perhaps he will correct me. If not, he has no answer to the point that he should have allowed advertising of bingo. His conduct, all his utterances from a standing position, if not from a sitting position, and the Amendment, lead us to suppose that he wishes to clamp down on the amount of bingo and other gaming.
In the bingo hall in my constituency that I have visited I have seen old people enjoying themselves, and I wonder what they would be doing if they were not in a bingo hall with other people. They would probably be at home before their television sets, perhaps fast asleep and utterly lonely. It is probably unrealistic to think that they would be indulging in worthwhile activities elsewhere, although perhaps hon. Members opposite are more optimistic. They are enjoying themselves there in a social atmosphere and I do not see that that is a great evil.
By this "concession", which is no concession, the Home Secretary is taking away a certain amount of pleasure from the many thousands of people who play bingo. It is a great pity that he is seeking virtually to eliminate the linked game. It puts a zip into bingo, which is enjoyed by many people throughout the country.

Mr. Oakes: I am sorry that in a debate which has been conducted very well in Committee and here from both sides the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) should use slogans such as "taking the 'go' out of bingo". The House should appreciate the tremendous concessions my right hon. Friend has made on bingo since Second Reading. Does the House realise that until the Bill becomes an Act it is doubtful whether linked bingo should be played at all? It is of doubtful legality.
Far from taking the "go" out of bingo, the Bill and the concessions my right hon. Friend has made establish it as a proper legal game, provided that it is within certain limits. Though I welcome this concession, there are one or two aspects that I do not fully understand. These concern the limit of £1,000 per week.
One of the difficulties is that there are so many different forms of playing bingo and linked bingo that it is difficult to

get a provision that would adequately cover the situation. I understand that people do not go to a bingo hall to play linked bingo. They go to play bingo. During the evening, as an added attraction, there is a link-up between various bingo halls. If only £1,000 in a week is to be paid out in prizes, I do not know how the bingo operators will be able to work the provision.
Supposing that on a Monday they have paid out a certain amount of money in prizes on linked bingo and then on Wednesday or Thursday a prize comes along, what do they do with the people in the hall? In bingo, all the stakes must be returned as prize money. Therefore, if this is to be on a weekly and not a per game basis, it means that the operator must either refuse admission to a certain number of people or he must tell those already in the hall, "We are linking with other halls but I regret that as we have overrun the limit only a certain number of you can play." This would be an impossible imposition on an operator and on the bingo players.
Obviously, there must be a limit because, with 8 to 10 million bingo players in the country, one could visualise what would happen technologically with the link-up of more and more halls. It would cease to be anything like the game we know today. It would cease to be linked bingo and would become a lottery on a grand scale if a very large number of halls were linked together. I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the limit again, not necessarily as a limit in itself but as a limit per game and not per week. I cannot see how this provision could be worked on a weekly basis.

Mr. Kitson: I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes). This provision would be completely unworkable. The Home Secretary was nodding when his hon. Friend was speaking, so presumably he agrees that it would be unworkable.
Surely we are getting this matter out of proportion. Spotting the ball in a Sunday newspaper competition can win a person £5,000. In a fashion competition, which is really only a form of lottery in getting numbers in the right order, a person can win £5,000. The attraction of the totalisator is the jackpot. In gambling of any form, the attraction is the large prize. The figure of £1,000


is far too low in terms of other prizes. The attraction, if we have a national lottery, will be the large prizes. The attraction in football pools is not the small dividends, but the large ones. To think in terms of £1,000 as the total amount in a week in a bingo hall in linked bingo betting is getting the matter out of all proportion.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the first big jackpot winner at Ascot last year happened to be someone from Cardiff who was in Cardiff at the time. He won £72,000.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I have the feeling that no one will be calling "House" during this debate, because I do not think that anybody can be a winner on this subject.
The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) tried to suggest that because we were concerned about this problem we were being quite unrealistic in the sense of the opportunity that people have to play spot the ball and all the other innocuous forms of time-wasting that we indulge in.
I must admit I have never managed to work out how spot the ball winners are picked, because the air must be positively thick with balls. However, we are discussing linked games at the moment. Surely the argument that spot the ball is a nice quiet family game is, in effect, true in the sense that it is done at home. Therefore, the comparison that the hon. Member was trying to make was quite ridiculous: bingo is not a family game in that sense.
I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might be regretting that he has achieved such fame as to be included in the attractive brochure by the National Association of Bingo Clubs. I do not know whether it will do him good in an election address, but the quote he made about bingo being a harmless family game will, I am quite sure, be one of the things that will be used against him for years to come, because there is no doubt that linked bingo is not a harmless family game in the sense that my right hon. Friend meant.
We seem to be covering so many aspects of gaming and gambling in the Bill that we really have to break down bingo and linked bingo into the type

of person who indulges in it. For example, I always find it amusing, when listening to one of the hon. Members here wondering whether the hours for gaming clubs should be 12 or all day, or whether they should finish at six o'clock in the morning, because I am quite sure that some ignorant people would imagine that the only people who play bingo at these hours would be some coloured immigrants living on public money with no intention of finding a job.
There are some decent, honest people who live normal lives and do go to work who indulge in bingo, and we have to examine seriously the social implications of linked bingo. I have had representations made to me, as have other hon. Members, showing a certain amount of sympathy on the question of linked bingo, but we have to face up to the logic of the argument that there should be no limitation. If there should be no limitation on linked bingo it seems to me that we are opening the floodgates for commercialism, with take-over bids in a big way. The small proprietor would be out on his neck.
We are concerned about the small club, the kind of community club that perhaps would be regarded, quite rightly, as a harmless way of passing time for all people in the community. I think that the Members opposite are doing a disservice to the cause they are championing if they suggest that we can leave it in an unrestricted fashion.

Mr. Buck: We have not.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) is not, I know, suggesting that it should be unrestricted, but I think that, equally, he would agree that it is a compromise that is not desirable to some extent, for reasons which I will not go into. I think that everyone accepts that to leave this matter without some form of control would be disastrous, but we are faced with the dilemma of how to achieve some form of control which makes sense and is administratively practical. I am not sure whether the Opposition's proposal is a practical one. It would not do anything to prevent the commercialisation of the game itself. It would merely mean that there would be more prize winners. The inducement


for big organisations to take over small clubs would not be eliminated.
Would it be possible to limit the number of cards a person can buy, or to specify the number of premises which can be linked? I fear that the Home Office and my right hon. Friend have not made sufficient examination of what I think most of us have in mind. We want some variety. Bingo is an absolutely boring game. It would drive most people "nuts" if they played it for six or seven days a week, but it is a sad reflection on our affluent society that apparently many people enjoy doing this.
I should like my right hon. Friend to look at this matter again with a view to finding some way of limiting the number of clubs which can be linked. That might be an effective way of avoiding commercialisation because it would have some effect on the amount of prize money. I shall support my right hon. Friend, although I think that the Government Amendment is a bit of a shambles and that the matter has not been properly thought out. I would be prepared to back it if for no other reason than that it is a warning to commercial proprietors that we want to limit and control the practice of expanding the amount of prize money which can be paid through linked games.
I accept that there is no question of corruption; I do not think that anyone has suggested that. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to look at this problem again, bearing in mind the principles which most of us want to apply, and which I am sure he shares.

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) has introduced the point which I wanted to make to the Home Secretary. I am not a passionate advocate of linked bingo. I do not feel qualified to speak about linked bingo. I doubt whether we know enough about the implications of the game to start determining in detail how it should run in the months and years ahead.
I enjoin on the Home Secretary a measure of consistency. I am not comparing the Amendment proposed here with the pool at Ascot or the prizes given elsewhere, although my hon. Friend had a perfectly valid point. I mean consist-

ency in respect of the Bill. As we have gone through the Bill there has emerged a pattern in which matters have tended to get into three compartments; matters which are for decision by us; matters which are for decision by the Board, and matters which are for decision by the Home Secretary. The question one asks is, by whom is this matter to be decided? I doubt whether it comes within the Home Secretary's category. It seems to be pre-eminently something which will have to be decided later on, or at least varied later on in the light of experience by the Board, possibly in consultation with the Home Secretary.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) said that we had moved a long way from Second Reading; he is quite right. The Home Office conceded a £1,000 limit at the Committee stage. By what stages did the Home Office arrive at the new compromise decision? At Second Reading in February there was to be no linked bingo. At Committee stage it was to be limited to £1,000 in a week. Will the Gaming Board after the first six months of its existence find that we have now hit on the right sum? It is doubtful.
I am suspicious about the manner in which the decision has been reached. We are giving the Board powers to deal with the livelihood and careers of croupiers; it has tremendous powers to do that and to deal with a number of establishments in conjunction with local licensing, but apparently it will not be fit to determine the size of a linked bingo kitty. This is what I mean by inconsistency, allocating the wrong functions to the wrong people.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he said that there may be other ways in which this can be limited to relieve the evils which the Home Secretary has in mind and at the same time to provide the added excitement which most bingo players want. Something is urgently needed to relieve the monotony of playing bingo on the ordinary level, and I have some sympathy with those who want to see a big prize at some point in the evening.
With all respect to the Home Secretary's advisers and the consultations that I am sure have gone on, how sure is the Home Secretary that he has it right? What crystal was used for this decision?


May I suggest that we award to those who have to make the decisions the right decisions in the right places, and leave this to the Board to decide a little later on.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I have some sympathy with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) as to whether this is a matter for the Board. I have been encouraged by the view expressed by many hon. Members that this proposal would drive out linked bingo. I have been appalled by the cri de coeur, the passionate plea by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), on behalf of commercialised bingo. Of all the subjects that we could be concerned about in the House this is the one which wrings my withers least. I feel obliged to regard the hon. Member with some anxiety when he keeps his passion for this subject.
The cammercialised exploitation of this form of activity, like many others, has destroyed what was a perfectly reasonable family or local affair. Local old people's bingo and other activities for raising money for a multitude of worthy causes are gone, destroyed utterly by the commercial development of these major units which pretend that this is all done for the welfare of elderly people. The Rank Organisation—one talks about hypocrisy; some there might qualify for the term—came to me explaining that the whole of their vast organisation in the town which I represent was very largely for the benefit of old people and extolled the great welfare services that they ran.
I do not deny that there are some welfare aspects to it. Nor do I suggest that this is a crooked operation. But any claims on welfare grounds are wholly misleading, and the operations in modern bingo halls and cinemas, even more so when linked with others all over the country, put the matter on a wholly different level.
9.0 p.m.
Some people try to give the impression that this sort of arrangement applies only to one game. However, in one form or another bingo is being played all the time. One cannot have a sandwich or drink without some form of bingo being on top of one. If one goes for a tour in the country, bingo is played on the

train. It is all a commercial operation run to make profit and, if this provision helps either to restrict or end linked bingo, which perhaps is more vicious than other forms, I shall be quite happy about it.
My anxiety about the Amendment is concerned with the weakening of my right hon. Friend in making concessions. I went to meet all my bingo committed friends in my constituency—no doubt they are my enemies now—and argued the case as I saw it. Behind my back, I find my right hon. Friend making concessions in all directions. However, my concern is the other way. My anxiety is whether he has gone too far and we are spending a lot of time expressing fears about something which should not worry us.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I sympathise with the intentions of the Amendment, but I feel that it is perhaps something of a shambles, because I do not think that it will achieve what it is setting out to do. Undoubtedly, the aim of my right hon. Friend is to stop the escalation of bingo playing, but I do not think that the Amendment will achieve that, because, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out, people will play bingo for almost anything, irrespective of the prize money involved.
If one wishes to contain the sport, if I may use that term, the direction in which my right hon. Friend should aim is the amount which an individual should be allowed to invest in or stake on the sport—

Mr. Blenkinsop: As one who is interested in sport, I do urge my hon. Friend not to use that word to describe bingo.

Mr. Roberts: I feel that the aim should be to, limit the amount which an individual is allowed to invest or stake. It could be done to some extent by limiting the number of tickets which could be bought. An even better way would be to limit the total money which each individual may stake. However, limiting the prize money to the amount suggested in the Amendment is neither practicable or workable.
Perhaps £1,000 per game might work out very much better on a linked basis. We have to accept that people who go


to halls to play games of this sort do so with two aims in mind. The first is that of getting some entertainment. The second is the chance of a fairly large win. If they cannot get this by having link odds against their investment their only alternative is to try to increase the size of their investment. I feel that the Home Secretary's target should be the size of the total investment. This Amendment will not solve the problem in any way whatever. I would feel much happier at allowing some link-up of the order of £1,000 a game or some figure of that kind.

Mr. Carlisle: The first comment I would make on the speech of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) is that he has advocated the wording of an Amendment which unfortunately has not been called. I appreciate the reasons why it has not been called. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South has put forward the argument that we put forward about limiting the prize to £1,000 in any game.
This has been a somewhat extraordinary debate in which the Home Secretary has been supported by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) who, in announcing that he would support the right hon. Gentleman, said that the Amendment was unworkable; the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South, who, in saying he would vote for the Amendment, said that it was a shambles: and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) who is now convinced that the Amendment does not do what the Home Secretary believes that it does.
The real reason why we on this side will vote against the Amendment is not because we do not believe that linked bingo should be permitted, but because we are satisfied that the Home Secretary's proposal is a shambles, as it has been described by one of his hon. Friends. Should we, with the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, win the Division on this Amendment, we would propose in another place to put into the Bill what we believe are the right proposals on this game.
Coming back to the question of linked bingo, and accepting that these proposals will kill the idea of linked bingo, I ask the Home Secretary: why does this House wish to prevent it? What is the

evil in linked bingo to which we should object? I understand that the average stake money is sixpence. Surely it is not suggested that linked bingo is the kind of thing which encourages people to spend more than they can afford. The only objection must be that whereas in a house game for sixpence one may win £50 or £100, in the linked game one may win several hundred pounds or possibly over £1,000. If that is so, the only evil which we are trying to prevent by the Home Secretary's method in the Amendment is the winning of large sums of money for very small stakes.
To a great degree I have sympathy with that aim. I said in Committee, as did many of my hon. Friends, that I do not think it is socially acceptable that people, on the turn of a coin, the win of a horse or whatever other means, should win sums of money which overnight uproot and change their way of life, because I believe it brings hardship rather than comfort.

An Hon. Member: For sixpence?

Mr. Carlisle: This is the point. At sixpence a time in the national game— and some games are 1s. 6d.—the objection of the Home Secretary is that by that means people can win sums far in excess of what should be permitted. That is the argument. I cannot see how that argument can possibly be justified by the Home Secretary, as a member of the Government, at the same time advocating a national lottery in which the sums likely to be won are far in excess of anything which can be won on linked bingo. I believe that there is an evil in sums completely out of proportion to the amount of money staked, but I do not see how one can bring in such a provision relating to linked bingo and yet allow pools, Premium Bonds and national lotteries in the way that we do. If that is the objection, I believe that it was met by our Amendment which would have limited the prize to £1,000 rather than, as this Amendment does, limit the stake money in a week to £1,000.
I come back to the question of it being unworkable, and it is surely unworkable for this reason: how is it possible to limit the amount of money which is to be paid out in prize money to a definite sum per week at the same stage as one is saying that any money accepted


as stake money must be paid out in prize money? This is impossible to achieve. We cannot prevent the amount of money going up if at the same time we say it must be 100 per cent. of the money taken in, other than by the means suggested of having someone go round the hall saying, "Stop! We cannot take money from the next lady because we find that we have hit our £1,000 for the week"—though how they are to know what has been taken in the other halls, heaven only knows. I believe, therefore, that it is unworkable.
I will explain why, for the same reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), I come to an exactly opposite conclusion and why I believe linked bingo should be allowed. Wishing to limit the prizes, he expressed concern that the existence of linked bingo helped commercialisation and the big men at the cost of the small. I believe that the effect of preventing linked bingo is likely to have an exactly opposite effect. I will give an example.
Let us take one of the biggest national companies concerned in bingo. It has a hall in Streatham which holds 2,500 people. Play in that hall alone can and does produce cash prizes of something in the region of £250 to £300; whereas a hall which has 200 people presumably produces house prizes in the region of about £10. The small hall does not lose by the linked game, but linking means that those in the small hall have an equal opportunity—and this should appeal to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) who is so keen on national lotteries—with the person in the big hall to win one of the larger prizes. Thus, the small hall is helped by being entitled to take part in that opportunity of winning a major prize. I believe this has been proved to be so. I am not going into it at this time, but there are figures which I believe show that for the two major organisations which run linked bingo the first prize appears to work out at between £500 and £1,000 in an evening game.
I do not believe there is any serious evil in linked bingo providing we limit, as I believe we should, the maximum amount of the first prize. Because the Home Secretary, with respect, believes there is something abhorrent about linked bingo, he is merely going to remove from many

people a perfectly acceptable and to them enjoyable pastime without any possible benefits at all for society. All he is doing is removing from them the opportunity to indulge in one form of a lottery whereas at the same time this Government themselves encourages people to take part in many others. I do not believe there is any advantage in this Amendment. I feel that linked bingo with reasonable prizes should be allowed because I believe it gives enjoyment and amusement to many people.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I hope that the House will not think me unduly paternalistic, or too puritanical, or prudish if I say that I am largely in agreement with nearly everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). I believe that the House should look at this question against the background of the substantial concession which has been made to bingo interests and bingo players. I think that it would be proper for those who advocate very much higher sums, and who charge the Government with hypocrisy, to bear in mind that there were strong pressures on the Government not to make any concession at all, or, if a concession was made, to limit it to a very much smaller one.
Secondly, the question should be considered against the background of the tremendous jungle growth which has occurred in the development of bingo over the last seven or eight years. Since 1960, about 10 million people have become members of bingo clubs. Britain now has more than 2,000 bingo clubs. In France, there are about 150 gaming clubs, and I venture to suggest that it is against such a canvas that we must consider this issue.
The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) asked what evil there was in this system. It might perhaps have been proper for him to have considered the words of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who said that gaming lowered the intellect. It is not for me to argue whether it does or does not, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that at some point where bingo consumes more and more of the time of the public and more and more of their assets, must not the question be asked: has it, or has it not, reached an unbearable point?
Parliament must obviously take heed of the development which has taken place over the last few years and ask itself whether the time has come to seek to contain the very rapid growth of bingo. It is a game which, in itself, would appear to be intrinsically attractive. It was played in Roman times. It was exported from Italy as "Lotto" in or about 1780, and it has consistently been popular in many countries. If the point is reached when a very high proportion of the incomes of ordinary people, a very high proportion of their time, and a very high proportion of their interest is taken up by bingo, does it not assume the proportions of a social peril?
The point has been made by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. (Mr. Kitson) and reiterated by the hon. Member for Runcorn that the system proposed is unworkable. We do not accept that argument. Our object is to control the scale of this activity, and a limit on the maximum prize will not do that, since bingo can be played to provide whatever number of prizes the organisers choose.
This is the rock upon which so much of our gambling legislation in the last eight years has foundered. To make certain that the concession does not get out of hand, we must limit the number of prizes in a game and the maximum in each. If we were to accept an alternative system, this would bring us to the same point but on an ascending spiral. We see no reason why clubs participating in a linked game should not be required to limit the number of books sold so as to correspond in value to the number of prizes intended to be offered.
The point is the price of each book, which might be 1s. if 20,000 were expected to be sold or 5s. if it were 4,000. If the clubs found it impossibly embarrassing or difficult to let the books run out, so that some intending players were disappointed, or to devise some selection for this contingency, the only remedy would be to over-insure, in the knowledge that some books were liable to remain unsold and that the ultimate prizes might be somewhat below the £1,000 maximum. We have chosen a maximum which is high by the standards which we are applying so as to leave a proper margin for this.
It has been suggested that it would be proper to transfer the fundamental decisions here to the Board. This is a social question of great magnitude which will be of increasing importance. It cannot be palmed off upon a Board which is not responsible to the electorate. This is a decision which the Government must make—

Sir S. McAdden: The hon. Gentleman says that this is a social question of great magnitude and must not be palmed off on the Board, yet, earlier, the social question of whether cabarets and casinos should operate in the same building was palmed off on the Board. Why does he make this distinction now?

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is under a misconception. The question of cabarets has not been palmed off on the Board. The decision, essentially, will lie with the Home Secretary and with Parliament. There is nothing in the Bill relating to cabarets in that connection. The Home Secretary is empowered to make regulations—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come back to bingo.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) made the interesting point that a better way of limiting the rapid growth of bingo was to put some restriction on the number of clubs which would be allowed to take part in a link. This is certainly attractive and it has been considered by the Government, but hon. Members can probably see the great difficulties which it would create. It would inevitably lead to much bigger clubs, which would be a complete defeat for the cri de coeur which has been put forward on behalf of small, struggling clubs, which can provide prizes of only £15, £20 and £25.
The Government have made substantial concessions to bingo interests and players in Clause 20. It is facile and unfair to argue on the basis of those concessions that bingo should be dealt with again in a more liberal way. The background to the situation is that a form of gaming which at the moment is almost certainly illegal has, by the Bill, been made legal, but we have placed a certain limit. We have done this after considerable reflection. I believe that if we were


to go further we would be imperilling society on account of the great potential for the further rapid development of this game of bingo.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 182 Noes 127.

Division No. 210.]
AYES
[9.25 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Frenon, Reginald
Oakes, Gordon


Alldritt, Walter
Galpern, Sir Myer
Ogden, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, W. E.
O'Malley, Brian


Archer, Peter
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Orme, Stanley


Armstrong, Ernest
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Oswald, Thomas


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paget, R. T.


Barnes, Michael
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Palmer, Arthur


Baxter, William
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilng, William
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Blackburn, F.
Harper, Joseph
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Haseldine, Norman
Pentland, Norman


Boston, Terence
Hattersley, Roy
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Boyden, James
Hazell, Bert
Price, William (Rugby)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Heffer Eric S.
Probert, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Randall, Harry


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Rees, Meriyn


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hooson Emlyn
Reynolds, G. W.


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Robinson, w. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rose, Paul


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Shaw, Aronld (Ilford, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Sheldon, Robert


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Coe, Denis
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Coleman, Donald
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Concannon, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ledger, Ron
Slater, Joseph


Crawshaw, Richard
Lestor, Miss John
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lever, Harold (cheetham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Lomas, Kenneth
Stonehouse, John


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Luard, Evan
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lyon, Alexander w. (York)
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McBride, Neil
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Macdonald, A. H.
Varley, Eric G.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dempsey, James
Mackintosh, John P.
Wallace, George


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dickens, James
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Doig, Peter
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Weitzman, David


Dunnett, Jack
Manuel, Archie
Wellbeloved James


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Marks, Kenneth
Wells, William(Walsall, N.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Marquand, David
Wilkins, W. A.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mendelson, J. J. 
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Ellis, John
Mikardo, Ian
Wilis,Rt.Hn.George(Edinburgh,E.)


Ensor, David
Millan, Bruce
Winnick, David


Evans, Abert (Isington, S.W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woof, Robert


Fernyhough, E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Yates, Victor


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moyle, Roland



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Newens, Stan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Forrester, John
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Clegg, Walter


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Body, Richard
Cooke, Robert


Awdry, Daniel
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Costain, A. P.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Balniel, Lord
Burden, F. A.
Currie, G. B. H.


Bell, Ronald
Carlisle, Mark
Dance, James


Bitten, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Chichester-Clark, R.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry




Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Jopling, Michael
Peyton, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pounder, Rafton


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Pym, Francis


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Emery, Peter
Lubbock, Eric
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)


Errington, Sir Eric
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Sharples, Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty) 
shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fortescue, Tim
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Silvester, Frederick


Foster, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maddan, Martin
Speed, Keith


Goodhew, Victor
Maginnis, John E.
Stainton, Keith


Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus
steel, David (Roxburgh)


Grant, Anthony
Mawby, Ray
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow.Cathcart)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mills, Peter (Tornington)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman
Temple, John M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus
Tilney, John


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
More, Jasper
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wall, patrick


Higgins, Terence L.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ward, Dame Irene


Hiley, Joseph
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Webster, David


Hogg, nt. Hn. Quintin
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Worsley, Marcus


Hunt, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewmg, Sir Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. Bernard Wcatherill and


Jenkin, Patrick (woodford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Hector Monro.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Further Amendments made: No. 14, in page 14, line 11, leave out ' 12(2)' and insert '12(3)'.

No. 15, in page 14, line 12, leave out from 'from' to end of line 18 and insert:
he was admitted" to "the premises in question, and " were omitted, and for the words " forty-eight hours" there were substituted the words " twenty-four hours ", and
(b) paragraph (b) were omitted'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 14, line 23, at end insert:
(4) In relation to any bingo club premises, section 19 of this Act shall have effect as if, in subsection (2) of that section, for the words from ' and consists of' to the end of the subsection, there were substituted the words ' and is a function of a kind prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this subsection '.

The Amendment operates on Clause 19(2) in such a way as to confine, in respect of premises licensed for bingo only, the obligation on gaming operatives to obtain certificates of approval from the Board to those who fulfill functions of a kind that may be prescribed by regulations. It is recognised that to require every operative in a bingo club, and in particular the large number of usherettes, to obtain certificates of approval would be unnecessarily burdensome to some of the clubs, to the individuals and to the Board.

On the other hand, there are certain bingo operatives such as callers who clearly should be certificated. Since it is not possible at this stage to identify precisely what kinds of operative may need to be vetted by the Board, and since bingo, like other games, is liable to evolve, it has been thought best to leave the definition to regulations to be made after consultation with the Board.

Mr. Buck: I referred in passing to the Amendment when we earlier gave the Board the arbitrary power to define a person who must be certificated for the purposes of operating any gaming. We take the view that it is right that the Board should be able to say that certain categories of people who work in bingo halls do not have to be certificated. We raised this point in Committee, and the Amendment has been put down as a result of assurances given by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor.
It would be absurd that usherettes or people who sell the cards in bingo halls and later adopt a different role, such as selling ice cream, should have to be approved by the Gaming Board. No doubt in due course the Board will lay down the specific activities which must be certificated and the whole of the rest of the staff will be outside the ambit of this type of restriction. Therefore, we welcome the Amendment.
The only thing that worries me somewhat is that we are putting considerable burdens on the Board. If we had our time again on the Bill it might have been better to exclude bingo from the whole of this restrictive legislation. But it is too late to consider that now.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 17, in page 14, line 24, at beginning insert:
'Without prejudice to the operation (where applicable) of subsections (2) to (2B) of this section'.

No. 18, in page 14, line 25, at end insert 'particular'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan]

Clause 21

FURTHER POWERS TO REGULATE LICENSED CLUB PREMISES

Amendment made: No. 100, in page 15, line 30, at end insert:
(4) Without prejudice to section 18 of this Act or to any powers exercisable by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section or by virtue of Schedule 2 to this Act, the Secretary of State may by regulations impose restrictions with respect to the hours during which gaming will be permitted to take place on premises in respect of which a licence under this Act is for the time being in force.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 22

OFFENCES UNDER PART II

Amendment made: No. 101, in page 15, line 33, leave out 'or subsection (2)' end insert:
'subsection (2) or subsection (4)'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move Amendment No. 143, in page 16, line 10, leave out '£400' and insert '£1,000'.

Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 144, also in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), in page 16, line 10, leave out from '£400' to end of line 11.

Mr. Rees-Davies: My right hon and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) dealt with part of this argument in Committee. The short point has been much emphasised by the Amendments which the Home Secretary has put

down. Our purpose is to secure that, instead of imprisoning those who infringe these provisions, we should hit them harder in the pocket. We propose to raise the fine from £400 if need be to £1,000 which, in a serious contravention, would not be excessive for gaming establishments. We would remove altogether the question of imprisonment under Clause 22.
Such a proposal has not been suggested for other Clauses, but I submit that this thread should run throughout the Bill. The Government are to give arbitrary power to the Board to strike off altogether and revoke the licence of an operator. The operators will have to be persons of impeccable respectability and integrity in order to obtain licences. The Board may strike off the premises and the gaming apparatus is subject to forfeit. The offending operator can be heavily punished by a fine as well as having his licence revoked without right of appeal. All these matters have completely changed the character of the Bill as originally set out.
It is our view, therefore, that we should not have the whole apparatus of sending an offender to prison. Our prisons are crowded and this is not an offence which requires imprisonment, except, of course, where the offender does not meet the fine, a circumstance for which there is provision elsewhere in our law. It is unnecessary to have an alternative of imprisonment. The substantial fine we propose would be sufficient deterrent and an adequate penalty without the need for imprisonment.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has argued that there is no justification for short-term imprisonment. Where a members' club or institute is involved in an offence, the certificate of registration may be withdrawn. A licence holder risks not only cancellation of his licence, but the disqualification of the premises and the withdrawal by the Gaming Board of its certificate of consent in respect of any other licences which he may hold.
If the Gaming Board is to exercise its powers effectively, it is clearly desirable that a convicting court should have power to mark out the worst cases by a penalty


more stringent than a fine, and in any case there are circumstances, particularly where a licence holder is personally concerned, in which a mere fine would be inadequate.
Breaches of Part II of the Bill, such as improper charging or having excessive odds in favour of a bank, might be exceedingly profitable and there are some who might be prepared to risk a fine and a loss of licence for a chance of the quick money to be made before detection. Here it is likely that the risk of a sentence, even though it may have to be a suspended sentence, of imprisonment, would provide a deterrent which the risk of fine would not. Certainly, a mere increase in the maximum fine from £400 to £1,000, as proposed by the Amendment, would be a quite insufficient substitute in such a case.
9.45 p.m.
Lastly, the Amendments as they stand are, therefore, unacceptable. We do, however, sympathise with the view that penalties of short terms of imprisonment should be avoided as far as possible. I would like to remind the hon. Gentleman that in this case, different from the position in many other parts of the Bill, there is here no alternative of proceeding by way of indictment with a maximum penalty of two years and an unlimited fine.

Mr. Rees-Davies: That is why I chose this Clause. Home Secretaries have now for successive years past said that the last thing one should do is to have short terms of imprisonment. We are trying to get rid of the alcoholics and drunks littering up our prisons. I cannot understand the argument for sending a man to prison for 12 to 30 months for a serious offence. Make the fine £2,000, if you think that it is required, but one is not going to sentence a man running a club under Clause 22 to three months' imprisonment. No reasonable magistrate would do it. We have got the strike-off power and all these powers now contained in the Bill in Committee. Would the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to look at this matter again?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should be as brief as possible in their interventions.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I concede that there is considerable merit in what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that it is well worth considering the possibility here of introducing into this part of the Bill the alternative of proceeding by way of indictment. This is a matter which could well be considered in another place.

Mr. Rees-Davies: On that assurance that the matter will receive detailed consideration, including the possibility of an alternative indictment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23

POWER OF COURT TO MAKE DISQUALIFICATION ORDER ON CONVICTION OF CERTAIN OFFENCES.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 16, line 37, at end insert
'prohibiting a licence under this Act from being held in respect of those premises during a period specified in the order'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Clause 23 provides that
Where a person is convicted of an offence committed in respect of any premises under subsection (1) of section 22 of this Act (including that subsection as applied by subsection (4) of that section), the court by which he is convicted may make a disqualification order under this section.
(2) Subject to the next following subsection, a disqualification order made under this section may, at the discretion of the court, by either—

(a) an order disqualifying the person convicted, for a period specified in the order, from holding a licence under this Act, or
(b) an order prohibiting such a licence from being held in respect of the premises in respect of which the offence was committed, or
(c) an order imposing both such a disqualification and such a prohibition."

Clause 24 makes provision for appeals and the hearing of other interested parties, such as the landlords, and for the revocation or variation of the Order, etc.
Either form of disqualification entails cancellation of the licence, but, whereas disqualification of the premises would


be purely local in effect, disqualification of the licence holder might have much more far-reaching consequences for other premises held by that person throughout the country. These Amendments remove the power of the court to disqualify the holder of the licence while disqualifying the premises.
Other licence holders to be entrusted would have to be dealt with by Amendments to Schedule 2, which include in the new paragraph 31 a power for the Board, following cancellation of a licence, to apply to the court or the justices to revoke all or any of the certificates of consent issued to the individual so concerned. This amounts to disqualification until such time as the Board may be disposed to issue a new certificate on application. The second power which the Board has to disqualify premises is a power to be left to the courts and the justices because it is maintained that the considerations are entirely local.

Mr. Buck: The Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that these Amendments can be summed up in the following way. The courts now lose the power to disqualify persons and that is transferred to the Gaming Board. They retain power to disqualify premises. That seems to be sensible. It is in line with the whole tenor of the arguments put forward by hon. Members of the Opposition in Committee. We think it right that there should be a powerful and strong Board. The courts in this case should not have the power to disqualify persons because the considerations which arise here are of persons in their corporate sense.
I have a great respect for magistrates, but I think that it would be unfortunate if they could disqualify a corporate person and the effect was that the whole operations of a large company were to be prevented and that might cause distress. Now the Board is to have this additional power of disqualifying persons the courts should no longer have the power. I welcome these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

POWER OF COURT TO MAKE DISQUALIFICATION ORDER ON CONVICTION OF CERTAIN OFFENCES

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 16, line 37, at end insert:
'prohibiting a licence under this Act from being held in respect of those premises during a peried specified in the order'.

No. 20, in page 16, line 38, leave out subsection (2).

No. 21, in page 17, line 10, leave out 'disqualification or'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 24

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO DISQUALIFICATION ORDERS

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move Amendment No. 124, in page 17, line 16, at end insert:
'by a court in England or Wales'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I propose that we consider Amendment No. 125.

Mr. Ross: The purpose of these Amendments is to make separate provisions for Scotland, on one hand, and England and Wales, on the other, in relation to appeals against disqualification under an order made under Clause 23. The position at the moment is perfectly adequate for England and Wales because Section 83 of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, provides a statutory right of appeal, but that provision does not extend to Scotland.
Accordingly, the second of these Amendments provides an express right of appeal in relation to Scotland without prejudice to any other form of appeal under Scottish law.

Mr. Buck: There is a shortage of Scottish lawyers in the House which has been noticed on both sides from time to time. We are in the fortunate position of having some on our side of the House, and one has heard an explanation in precisely the terms which have just been put forward graciously from the other side. It is surprising that this was a matter which was omitted from the Bill in the first


place. I feel that our Highland friends were somewhat lax in seeing that an important matter such as the suspension of sentence during a period of appeal was not tackled earlier. We are very glad that those north of the Border will now be in precisely the same position as those south of the Border.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 125, in page 17, line 22, at end insert:
(2) The person on whose conviction a disqualification order was made under section 23 of this Act by a court in Scotland may, without prejudice to any other form of appeal under any rule of law, appeal against the order as against the conviction; and the disqualification order—

(a) shall not take effect until the end of the period of fourteen days commencing with the date on which the order was made; and
(b) if an appeal against the order or the said conviction is taken within the said period, shall not take effect until the date when that appeal is determined or abandoned or deemed to have been abandoned. —[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 126, in page 17, line 23, leave out from 'make' to ' the' in line 24 and insert:
'an order under that section prohibiting'.
This is a drafting Amendment which is consequential upon the Amendments made to Clause 24. It supersedes Amendment No. 22.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 23, in page 17, line 32, leave out 'disqualification or'.

Clause 26

GENERAL RESTRICTIONS

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 19, line 7, at end insert:
'for use exclusively at a travelling showmen's pleasure fair or'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendment Nos. 25, 26, 27, 102 and 37.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The first three Amendments which you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, on which the others are largely consequential, have the effect of

giving the travelling showmen the same degree of exemption from the provisions requiring machine suppliers to be certificated by the Board, that is Clause 26, and prohibiting profit-sharing arrangements for the supply of machines, that is Clause 27, as the Bill already confers on amusement caterers operating on piers, pleasure grounds and other permanent sites.

Sir S. McAdden: In speaking to this Amendment I want to speak to the other Amendments to which you have referred, Mr. Speaker, particularly the Amendment to Amendment No. 25, and Amendment No. No. 25. Those two Amendments give expression to an Amendment which I moved in Committee stage.
I do not know whether it was due to the late stage at which we came to it, or to the inadequacy of my advocacy, but it did not seem to have a great deal of success. Although it is recorded in the proceedings of the committee that I subsequently withdrew the Motion which I proposed, it was not due to any lack of conviction on my part about the cause that I was espousing, but to the fact that I could not get any support from the Committee.
I am convinced that the decision at which the Committee arrived, in other words, not to accept the Amendment, is one which they will greatly regret, and one which they will give effect to this evening by accepting these Amendments. I am convinced that the Committee came to its conclusion in an atmosphere of lack of understanding of what was involved.
I am sure that the Committee was under the impression that we were discussing machines of a hard gaming nature, whereas we were in fact discussing machines offering amusements with prizes which are limited in value and where there is no evidence of the kind of intimidation which was brought to light so nobly by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) and which resulted in a great deal of publicity in the national Press—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered.
That the Proceedings on the Gaming Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. Ross.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Sir S. McAdden: I am very unlucky. Even in Committee I was interrupted and had to continue my speech next day. However, it may be that that interruption will help us come to a clear and sensible decision on this matter.
Whilst it is right to seek to prevent the excesses which occur in the operation of gaming machines and try to stamp out rackets of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, surely it is not suggested that racketeers are involved in machines providing amusements and prizes on licensed premises. Indeed, I asked the hon. Gentleman to give me some examples of where racketeering might have occurred, but even he, with his great experience, could not quote any.
I felt that the hon. and learned Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill had been inadequately briefed on the subject, because he appeared to think that there was some possibility of brewers being intimidated by the retailers of these machines. I have no interest to declare, and I am not here on behalf of the brewers, but I find it difficult to imagine the brewers being intimidated by racketeers. These operations are well conducted. In most cases there is a profit-sharing arrangement between the brewer, the licensee and the retailer of the machine. It is an arrangement which works satisfactorily, and there is no evidence of racketeering. The brewers, the licensees and the retailers of the machines like it. It works very well, and I hope that consideration will be given by the Government to allowing the existing state of affairs to continue.
No one denies that the accounts are kept meticulously, and the division of what I may call the spoils is exceptionally fair as between the interested parties. It is an arrangement which enables some of our country public houses to have machines offering amusements with prizes which would not be possible if it were not for the existing sharing arrangements, because they cover a large number of public houses some of which will be more profitable than others. By taking the rough with the smooth, all are able to enjoy the benefits of the machines,

which do not ruin the country or cause great vice and corruption.
I am sure that the Committee's decision was due to a misunderstanding. From time to time Parliament makes mistakes. If we have made a mistake in this case, why should we not admit it and put it right now by saying that the operation of these machines is not a vicious form of gambling and does not cause public scandal? After all, if it is permissible on seaside piers and in amusement arcades, why should it not be in public houses?
For those reasons and in the hope that on this occasion my humble proposal will be accepted by the House, I resume my seat with a spirit of optimism. I hope to hear some cheerful words from the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Buck: At the moment, we are dealing with the group of Amendments associated with Amendment No. 24. As I understand it, they put the position of the travelling showmen and members of the Showmen's Guild on the same basis as members of the Amusement Caterers' Association. We raised the point in Committee, and we were assured that the matter would be looked at because there was some doubt about it. We are glad to see that it is now to be put to rights. Now the same concessions which had been made earlier to amusement operators operating from a static position are extended to travelling fair men and fair operators. We are glad of that and in due course hope to have similar sympathetic treatment on other Amendments relating to similar topics.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The Committee went gloriously astray on this matter. It is plain that it was not understood. I have been closely concerned on many occasions with the presentation of the arguments which are necessary in this sphere. I have no interest to declare, save that in another place I had to present the case for the best known company operating in this sphere and also originally to look at the position about amusements with prizes contrasted with gaming machines.
It is essential to understand the background. For the last 25 to 30 years in areas of my constituency, such as Dreamland, there has always been a clear distinction between gaming machines or one-armed bandits in the proper sense and


amusements with prizes. The two are in no way connected and it is important to realise the difference. A one-armed bandit may give a jack-pot with a substantial money prize. It is properly subject to control and only two such machines are permitted in clubs. In this Bill a one-armed bandit is subject to rigorous control and licence.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would appear that the hon. Member is addressing himself to Amendment No. 142, which is not selected.

Mr. Rees-Davies: No, Mr. Speaker. I am addressing myself to the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone and myself, which is,
upon licensed premises in respect of which a permit is granted pursuant to Section 49(1) of the Act of 1963 (Provision of amusements with prizes at certain commercial entertainments).
We would like that added as one of the exceptions. I should have made it plain at the outset that I was speaking to that.
I am all for adding travelling showmen. I am seeking to argue that in the case of amusements with prizes one should be permitted to have them on a fairground or on a pier, in the case of travelling showmen, and also that one should have them in licensed premises provided they are not gaming machines but are properly amusements with prizes. Of all the arguments I would address to the House, I am convinced that this is absolutely unanswerable when one really understands the position.
When the 1960 and the 1963 Acts were passed certainly the Home Office did not think that people in public houses would be able to get permits for what they thought were one-armed bandits. The Committee at the time did not recognise that it would be possible to invent a disc-operated machine for use in a public house. What happened was that the operators went to counsel in this country and sought advice. As a result of that advice, it was pointed out to the publican, and thus to the brewer, that he could apply for a permit for a machine in his public house provided it returned to the operator a prize not exceeding 5s. and a machine was specifically devised which led to applications for permits in public

houses so that people could engage in this harmless game.
I say "game" because it is just the same as the one on a pier except that it is in public. It is identical. Nobody can suggest that this is gaming. When the application goes before the local authority, and on appeal before the committee— and many have gone on appeal before the committee—the overwhelming arguments of the recorders of this country, which can all be seen on the files of the Home Office—and they include Baptists in the West Country, Roman Catholics in the East of England and good solid church-going folk up and down the country— have been that it is perfectly proper. They have all passed them as amusements with prizes, after very rigorous and proper control.
That being so, the publicans entered into contracts and the really impossible feature of the Bill as it stands at the moment is that if it is carried into effect in its present form it will have a very serious retrospective operation. Let me give just one example. Three of the leading brewers in this country have obtained permits, one in the case of 350 public houses, another in the case of 175 public houses, and a third for an almost equivalent number. Those permits have been granted, this year in some cases, last year in others, for three years. They have, therefore, an existing permit for some three years to enable them to have these amusements with prizes. Once a brewer has obtained a permit he is no longer engaged in running the machines and the brewers have entered into profit-sharing contracts with the well-known companies which supply these machines; and the brewers are bound to that contract to continue for the period of their permit, that is, for at least another two and a half years. They are bound by a contract to take these machines from the supplier into their public house in pursuance of their permit and on terms agreed.
If this alteration in the law is made it will cause acute hardship on the suppliers or the publican, or both, because we are changing the law in the middle of an existing situation. I know that this has not been seen. If it had been seen and appreciated by the Home Secretary he would, I am sure, have recognised that there was here a very serious


fault that needed looking at. Furthermore, I believe there have been one or two—dare I say?—somewhat wayward suggestions from the bench who also did not understand the difference between an amusement with prizes and a gaming machine. I am not suggesting everybody should understand the difference straight away. I; one sees one of these monstrosities with its long name and its big handle to be pulled, one might well think that one machine is the same as another. But there have always been, in our law and in our practice, a very real difference. The only reason why the public house machine looks like the other machine is because they wanted the machines to look alike so that people in public houses might be encouraged so to use it. That is the only reason.
If the Government are willing to permit even children to go into a fairground or to a travelling showman's fair around the country in which these machines are in operation, how can it be contended that it is wrong to have them in a public house? Why should we change the law from a position which is perfectly satisfactory for most circumstances? Permits which have been granted by local authorities under Section 49(1) of the Act of 1963 for amusements with prizes at those entertainments have been perfectly properly given. Are we now to say that Parliament having given this authority and this power and having permitted all these people to make their arrangements for the next three years on the reliance of the word of Parliament, Parliament now turns round and says, "We are terribly sorry. We are changing the law and we are going to do this."?
10.15 p.m.
The Minister may well have been given some food for thought by what I have said, and by what my hon. Friend said. What my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) said in Committee was true, but nobody seemed to grasp the significance of it. We do not propose to divide the House on this issue, but it is a matter which I hope the Government will consider carefully in another place, because an injustice is being done to those who have entered into contracts, and I can give the Minister any information that he wants on that. I can give him the names of the breweries, the companies, and the

contracts to show that they are binding for years.
I ask that careful consideration be given to what has been said, and that we continue the principle enshrined in the 1963 Act of drawing a clear distinction between a gaming machine, which has to be the subject of rigorous control, and a machine which happens to be an apparatus which does nothing more than provide idle and reasonable pleasure at very small cost.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Amendment is technically defective in that Section 49(1) of the 1963 Act, which is amended by Schedule 11, applies only to amusements with prizes in which machines are not used, whereas the Amendment is concerned exclusively with machines whose supply and use are now to be governed wholly by Part III of the Bill.
The object of the Amendment is to get rid of the ban on amusement machines on licensed premises. The objections to profit-sharing arrangements are that they give retailers a continuing interest in the amount of use made of the machine, a claim to be on the premises to see how they are being used, and a right to check the accounts and earnings. They thus accentuate the pressures which unscrupulous retailers can bring to bear on their customers.
That apart, when dealing with relatively inexperienced customers the percentages can well be fixed in such a way as to leave the suppliers with an undue advantage.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Gentleman may be reading from a brief, but does he really believe that brief when it says that the licensed trade will be fooled by these operators? These are all professional licensees, and in the majority of cases they are great chain establishments with the finest advice that money can buy.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am not naive enough to believe that this situation is not open to abuse. There is a precedent in the law of mortgages for the law to intercede between a brewery or substantial interests and the owner of licensed premises. There is, therefore, a precedent for saying that the law looks with especial favour upon protecting the


publican. There is also a danger for inexperienced customers of percentages being fixed unfairly so as to leave the suppliers with an unconscionably substantial profit. The system tends to the detriment of the occupiers, who were supposed to be the chief beneficiaries of these machines; they are merely so many commercial outlets for the retailers and relegated to the position of junior partners.
These objections have long been recognised. Section 54 (2) of the 1963 Act already bans profit-sharing in the supply of gaming machines and Clause 27(2) of the Bill now extends the ban to amusement machines. I note the point about the possibly retrospective effect of the Clause and give an assurance that this will be examined in detail. I merely throw out the consideration that the law of frustration could apply to such a situation, but I should like time to consider all the ramifications.
I plead that the use of these amusement machines has proliferated since 1960 as it was never expected to do when the permit system was introduced in that year. They are often identical in design with gaming machines, being the familiar one-armed bandits. I believe that, mechanically, it is impossible to distinguish between the two, and that the only one is the monetary distinction, the limit set by Statute. They offer the same temptations to methods of pressure and extortion as do gaming machines, and the more closely the supply of the latter is regulated, the more one may expect more unscrupulous retailers to turn their attention to this other market—

Sir S. McAdden: I have asked several times for any evidence of undue pressure being put on anyone. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of notice of this and has not given one single example to justify this claim.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I do not pretend that I have this evidence to hand. In a relationship such as exists between a publican and the brewers and retailers, few

people may be anxious to air their complaints publicly. But often, the same people are responsible for the manufacture of amusement machines and gaming machines. Many of those retailers have unimpeachable characters; some have not. Abuses have appeared and are well known in relation to gaming machines and there is, therefore, no reason why those abuses should not in time appear in relation to amusement machines—

Mr. Rees-Davies: There is every reason. They are harmless. No money can be made. To get a permit under Section 49, demand has to be established and that demand comes from the public. The publican would then go to his brewer, who would then make his contract. These are amusements. They are not gaming machines and will not give any volume of money to anyone. They are not even like bingo—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief. We are on Report, not in Committee.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: It is no part of my case to say that this can constitute as lucrative a prospect for the retailer as gaming machines, but once that avenue has been closed it is possible, likely and virtually certain that the attention of would-be racketeers would turn to amusement machines. Therefore, while it is true that the restriction may at this stage be considered precautionary, we would be foolish, in view of the evidence of racketeering in the supply of these machines, if we were to neglect that precaution.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 25, in page 20, line 11, after 'machine' insert:
'for use exclusively at a travelling showmen's pleasure fair or'.

No. 26, in line 14, after 'machine', insert:
'at any such pleasure fair or'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 30

USE OF MACHINES BY VIRTUE OF LICENCE OR REGISTRATION

Mr. Bock: I beg to move Amendment No. 152, in page 21, line 1, after 'machines', insert:
'or such greater number (if any) as may be specified by an order made on the advice of the Board by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection'.
We now come specifically to consider machines known as one-armed bandits. The House should be aware of what the Bill does at present relative to these machines, because there is one aspect of the Bill's; treatment of these extraordinary machines about which one cannot be entirely happy. If two of these machines, as laid down by Statute, are on the premises of proprietary clubs, the profits emanating from them must go to charity. This position is eliminated by the Bill and I am not entirely happy about that.
The Amendment is similar in character to Amendments tabled in Committee. It seems to my hon. Friends and I that there is no logical reason why the number of one-armed bandits, or fruit machines as they are otherwise called, should be two on any club premises. Why, in logicality, should there be two? We have not been told why or how this number was arrived at.
It seems absurd that there should be two machines in a club catering for thousands of people while in a miniscule club in which one can hardly get in there should be two machines also. We propose that the number should remain at two for the time being but that, on the recommendation of the Gaming Board, a different number could by order be substituted. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) wondered whether it was appropriate to clutter up the Board with matters of this kind. He hoped that a more appropriate way would be found to add flexibility in this respect. As usual, there was considerable substance in my right hon. Friend's argument, but, since no other way of introducing this flexibility has been found, I am thrown back on this Amendment. It would make greater sense than continuing the entirely arbitrary position which enables clubs, great and small, to have each just two gaming machines.
I hope that the Under-Secrelary and his colleagues have given extra thought to this matter since Committee, and that now we shall have either acceptance of the Amendment or an indication that in another place the position will be dealt with by providing greater flexibility.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Gaming machines, because of the large jackpots they offer, and the rapidity of turnover, represent, in my estimation, unequalled chances of gaming in its most addictive form. For that reason, the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, which sat between 1949 and 1952, recommended that they should be prohibited absolutely.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) has asked why the number was fixed at two. The Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, departed from the Commission's recommendation, because there was thought to be little harm in allowing clubs—that is, genuine members' clubs—to make a modest profit from the use of these machines, and, therefore, it allowed up to two machines to be installed on premises to which the public had no access. The provision was perpetuated by Section 33 of the 1963 Act, and is now being confirmed, in respect of licensed or registered or specially registered clubs, by Clause 30(2) of the Bill.
In practice, these machines have proved to be every bit as addictive as the Royal Commission supposed they would be, and, consequently, a great deal more profitable than those who framed the 1960 Act ever expected. A great mass of vested interest has built up behind their supply and use, and their commercial and gaming use has so developed as to make the controls in Part III of the Bill imperative. As for the permitted number of machines, it is, the Government realise, too late to turn the clock back, but an ordinary club should be well content with the profits which two machines can bring it. In many cases, it is appreciated that those profits already subsidise a large part of a club's activities. There seems to be no need to increase further their number, and to make this market still larger.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 21, line 43, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 13 on page 22 and to insert:
'at any time when the public have access to the premises, whether on payment or otherwise '.
Clause 30(8), as it stands, provides that gaming machines, on the premises of a licensed club or institute registered in respect of the premises under Parts II or III of the Bill, shall be used only by members of the club or institute or their bona fide guests. This Amendment substitutes the requirement that they shall not be used at any time when the public have access to the premises. The chief significance of this Amendment is that it would allow machines in, for instance, a working men's club, or Conservative club, to be used by associate members who are not or may not be bona fide guests of one of the club's members, but, from their associate status, are not members of the public, either. Also, it would allow machines in golf clubs to be used by visiting competitors.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32

USE OF MACHINES AT NON-COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENTS

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 112, in page 22, line 30, leave out ' the following entertainments ' and insert:
'any entertainment which takes place elsewhere than on premises in respect of which—

(a) a licence under this Act is for the time being in force, or
(b) a club or a miners' welfare institute is for the time being registered under Part II or under this Part of this Act,
and which is an entertainment of any of the following kinds'.
I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if we consider with it Government Amendment No. 116.
The object of the Amendments is to prohibit "amusements with prizes" in the form of machines or fairground games being provided as "incidents" to non-commercial entertainments such as fetes, dances, dinners or bazaars, in any

club or institute licensed or registered under Part II.
The provisions allowing amusements to be provided as "incidents" to entertainments promoted otherwise than for private gain are at present contained in Section 48 of the 1963 Act, but are separated by the Bill, so that the use of machines is dealt with under Clause 33, but the provision of games is left to be governed by the 1963 Act, subject to certain amendments in Schedule 11. In either case, however, the existing provisions are perpetuated in their substance. They are extremely liberal. Provided the amusements are no more than "incidents", and the objects of the entertainments are noncommercial, all the normal restrictions on stakes, prizes and so on are lifted. There is no limit to the number of machines that may be used, and no permit or other authority has to be obtained from anyone. Moreover, the entertainments are open to the general public, as follows from their very nature.
It is evident in these circumstances that to allow such entertainments to be promoted on licensed or registered premises, with the public freely admitted, would provide endless opportunities to evade the restrictions imposed by of under the provisions of Part II. Dinners or dances might be held almost nightly, It would be difficult in the case of a licensed club to prove that the profits were in fact being wholly devoted to non-commercial uses, and a registered club or institute could lawfully appropriate them to its own purposes, that is, to the general benefit of its members, since this would not constitute private gain or profit. Obviously, this loophole needs to be closed, and the Amendments do it. If a club of either kind, or a miners' welfare institute, genuinely wishes to make a special contribution to charity or some other deserving purpose, there is nothing to prevent it from devoting to this the profits or receipts from an evening's gaming under the normal conditions of licence or registration, or setting aside a part of the normal take from its gaming machines.

Mr. Buck: The Amendment puzzled me until I had a word with some of those who advise the Minister and I did a little more homework on it. It seems


to me that the nub of it is that no charitable functions such as fetes and bazaars can take place on registered club premises; if the registered clubs are to be able to use their machines they cannot do so when the public are there.
At first blush it would seem entirely desirabb that from time to time registered clubs should, from the goodness of their hearts, allow their premises and facilities to be used for charitable purposes. I am a little surprised that it has been found necessary to make the Amendments, but I can see their point and therefore do not intend to delay the House for very long. One can see the very great complications that there would be over enforcement if such functions were allowed on registered premises, and that is probably the basic reason behind the Amendments. There would then be considerable difficulties in enforcement, which is one of the keys to the Bill. One is reluctant to see the House discard any Amendment which makes a substantial contribution to the ease and simplicity of enforcement. On balance, I take the view that, narrowly, these Amendments, which eliminate the public even for charitable purposes from going on to registered club premises and enjoying facilities there, are desirable.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33

OTHER USES OF MACHINES FOR AMUSEMENT PURPOSES

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 24, line 10, leave out from 'a' to 'pleasure' in line 14 and insert 'travelling showmen's'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 24, line 20, to leave out from second 'receive' to 'any' in line 21.
There is a formidable group of Government Amendments down to this Clause which perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House to consider with No. 87. They are: Nos. 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I suggest that we could also discuss two Amendments standing in my name. They are No. 129, in page 24, line 25, leave out 'five' and

insert 'ten', and No. 130, in line 32, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is for the convenience of the House, so be it.

Mr. Callaghan: The purposs of the Government Amendment is to recast the endings of subsections (3) and (4). The Clause as drafted stipulates the prizes in money or in kind or combinations of both which can be given by machines when used for amusement purposes. The Amendments represent no change in intention. They are designed to clarify the drafting. At the same time, they correct two defects.
First, the general principle of these amusement machines is to allow prizes in money or in kind within prescribed limits to be delivered either directly by the machine itself or obtained in exchange for tokens delivered by the machine. Subsection (3)(d) as it stands provides for delivery by the machine of a combined prize consisting of up to 2s. in money and an article up to the value of 5s., less the amount of the money prize. But nowhere does it provide for the delivery of a token exchangeable for a combined prize within these limits. The Amendment rectifies that omission.
Now for an even more important point. Subsection (4) allows for the machine which gives a winner some money back plus another go. The form of words in the Bill as drafted gives rise to doubts about the case of a machine which gives another go, and then another, and then another, and then another which the player may be winning.

Mr. Hogg: Let's go with Labour.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, and one always wins a prize. The whole point of going with Labour is that one constantly wins.
We are recasting the wording to provide that this is permissible, provided that the 2s. maximum is not exceeded. I hope the House will agree that these Amendments will make the intention clearer.
Amendments No. 129 and 130 would increase from 5s. to 10s. the maximum prizes in value to be won in a single go or used as the component of the calculation where prizes are given partly in money and partly in kind. The 1960 Act proposed a limit of 1s. on prizes in cash.


The 1964 Act put a limit on prizes in kind of 5s. Clause 33 raises the limit on cash prizes to 2s. besides allowing a combined prize—a great novelty, this —up to the value of 5s., of which 2s. may be in money.
These machines are intended to be used for amusement purposes and not for gaming in any serious sense. For that reason they, unlike gaming machines proper, are allowed to be installed in places open to the public.
10.45 p.m.
Even allowing for the fall in the value of money since 1960, this would be stretching the conception of amusement a little. While Clause 30(8) gives me power to vary the stipulated limits by order, I think it would be some time before I should wish to do so. I know that there are some interests among machine manufacturers and retailers, as well as customers, who would want these machines converted into gaming machines with the advantage of unrestricted public access and the Amendment would be a step in that direction, but on the other hand other manufacturers do not believe that it is necessary in any way to increase the amount from 5s. to 10s. I have had consultations about this and, although I see the point of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet, I could not ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: With devaluation the prize is now paltry—one cannot even get 20 cigarettes with it. The interests which are against the proposal like to give paltry prizes, but others want to give the public something worth while.

Mr. Callaghan: These machines are for amusement. They have no restrictions imposed on them. Some of them are designed as one-arm bandits. Without giving any assurance, I rest on the fact that subsection (8) gives me power if the prizes seem paltry even for amusement purposes, to look at the question again.

Mr. Buck: It was some time before one realised the importance of these complicated Amendments. Then one realised that there has been a complete restructuring of the whole of Clause 33. It would have been rather interesting

had the Bill gone through unamended, to see ingenious operators designing a machine able to deliver not only a teddy bear but also tokens and money. It is obvious, since these prizes can be collected over the counter, that there would be an absurd situation under the Clause as originally structured. It is much better now it has been completely revised. We are glad that the anomaly has been cleared up.
As opposed to the earlier Amendment, where there is a strict limitation of two gaming machines in a club there is flexibility as to the amount that can be given in prizes. Perhaps 5s. is all right as a starting point, although if the value of money continues to go down, the Home Secretary will have to make an order very quickly to increase the amount.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 88, in line 23, at end insert:
'or a token exchangeable only for such a money prize'.

No. 89, in line 25, at end insert:
'or a token exchangeable only for such a non-monetary prize or such non-monetary prizes'.

No. 90, to leave out lines 26 to 29.

No. 91, in line 32, at end insert:
'or a token exchangeable only for such a combination of a money prize and a non-monetary prize'.

No. 92, in line 32, at end insert:
(d) one or more tokens which can be used for playing one or more further games by means of the machine and, in so far as they are not so used, can be exchanged for a non-monetary prize or non-monetary prizes at the appropriate rate.

No. 93, in line 34, leave out from 'that' to end of line 41 and insert:
'a player, after inserting in the machine an amount permitted in accordance with subsection (2) of this section and playing a game successfully, is afforded by the automatic action of the machine an opportunity to play one or more further games without inserting any further coin or token in the machine, if in respect of all those games—

(a) he does not receive, and is not entitled to receive, any article other than a money prize or money prizes of an amount or aggregate amount not exceeding two shillings, and
(b) he does not receive, and is not entitled to receive, any other benefit or advantage apart from the opportunity to play those games'.

No. 102, in line 42, leave out from 'of to 'the' in line 43 and insert:
'a travelling showmen's pleasure fair '.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 113, in page 25, line 6, at end insert:
(7) No permit for the purposes of this section shall be granted in respect of any premises where a licence under this Act is for the time being in force in respect of them or where a club or a miners' welfare institute is for the time being registered in respect of them under Part II of this Act; and, where such a licence is granted or a club or a miners' welfare institute is so registered in respect of any premises, and a permit granted for the purposes of this section is then in force in respect of those premises, the permit shall thereupon cease to have effect.
I understand that it is intended to take with this Amendment No. 115.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House pleases, so be it.

Mr. Morgan: The Amendment, on which the second is consequential, prohibits permits being granted under Clause 33 for the use of machines for "amusements with prizes", either to a licensed club or to a registered club or miners' welfare institute, and annuls any existing permits where premises become so licensed or registered.
Licensed and registered clubs or institutes are each entitled under Clause 33 to the use of two gaming machines with large or unlimited prizes. Under Clause 31, a licensed club may forgo this right in exchange for the use of any larger number of amusement machines with limited prizes as the licensing authority may allow, this arrangement being in substitution for any right which the club might otherwise be considered to have to apply to the local authority for a permit for such machines under Clause 33. Accordingly, the machine permit system is only appropriate in the case of premises to which Part II of the Bill does not apply.
The considerations in the case of the registered clubs and institutes are different. Whereas a licensed club, and a bingo club in particular, may be prepared to forgo its gaming machines so as to allow more, if less profitable machines to be available for the use of its members during intervals of the bingo sessions, and prevent the disorderly

crowding which often occurs, it is most unlikely that any members' club or institute would willingly make such an exchange, from which it could be expected to lose money. The issues here is whether they should be allowed amusement machines on permit in addition to their two gaming machines. This the Amendment prevents. The gaming machines are a considerable financial privilege in themselves, and it is one of the objects of Part III of the Bill to prevent the further proliferation of machines of any type by giving rights of use which do not exist at present.

Mr. Buck: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. However, I do not see why a registered club should not have amusemenets with prizes in substitution, perhaps, for the two gaming machines which it is allowed at the moment. On the other hand, I cannot see that there is any strong argument in favour of such a club being alowed to have them. It appears that the registered clubs have not made any strong representations on the matter. If they have, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us.

Mr. Morgan: I am not aware of any such representations, but that does not mean that some were not sent to my predecessor. However, I doubt very much whether any were made.

Mr. Buck: I think that we may take it that any representations would have come to the attention of hon. Members on this side of the House had there been any strong feelings about the matter.
Personally, I feel extreme indifference for the Amendment, and I shall not labour the House further with my indifference.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 94, in page 25, line 11, leave out '(3)(c)' and insert ' (3))(d)'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 35

REMOVAL OF MONEY FROM MACHINES

Amendment made: No. 103, in page 26, line 6, after ' II', insert ' or under this Part '.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 38

PENALTIES UNDER PART III

Amendment made: No. 127, in page 30, line 6, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert:
(4) An order under subsection (3) of thissection made by a court in England or Wales—

(a) shall not take effect until the end of the period within which the person on whose conviction the order was made can appeal against the conviction or against the making of the order, and
(b) if he so appeals, shall not take effect until the appeal has been determined or abandoned.

(5) The holder of a permit in respect of which an order under subsection (3) of this section is made by a court in Scotland may, without prejudice to any other form of appeal under any rule of law, appeal against the order in the same manner as against a conviction, and a permit shall not be cancelled under an order so made—


(a) until the end of the period of fourteen days commencing with the date on which the order was made, nor
(b) if an appeal against the order or the conviction which gave rise thereto is taken within the said period, until the date when that appeal is determined or abandoned or deemed to have been abandoned.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 39

SPECIAL CHARGES FOR PLAY AT CERTAIN CLUBS AND INSTITUTES

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 30, leave out lines 39 to 41.
The Clause makes a special concession for members' clubs and institutes whereby they are allowed, without having to register under Part II of the Bill, to charge sums not exceeding 6d. per person per day to players of equal chance games such as bingo. This Amendment omits the condition in subsection (2) which confines the charges to members of the club or institute concerned and their bona fide guests, but, since the Clause is not excluded from the scope of Part I of the Bill, the concession remains subject to the provisions of Clause 5(l)(a) which forbid gaming in any place to which the public have access.
The effect of the Amendment, therefore, is simply to widen the permissible scope of the charges for premises which

are not registered under Part II to include associate members of a club, visitors and so on. The considerations here are the same as those prompting an earlier Amendment to Clause 30. If the premises are registered under Part II the ordinary provisions of Clause 12 in regard to who may participate will continue to apply.

Mr. Rees-Davies: This is an important Clause which was hardly discussed in Committee. It deals with the genuine members' club. It does not deal with bingo or anything of the sort. It is concerned with the sort of clubs of which we are members; with "normal" men's clubs which are not registered for gaming but where table money is charged for bridge and similar games.

Mr. Morgan: I mentioned bingo only as being illustrative of a type of equal chance gaming which could take place on those premises.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, but that is irrelevant because it never does take place. My hon. Friends and I are not concerned with that aspect so much as with what happens in the Carlton, the Junior Carlton, Brooks's and similar clubs in London and elsewhere. There will be strong resentment if they cannot make their usual table charges, which are not in 6d.s, a derisory amount. These clubs should be entitled to lay down the table charges which they consider to be fair and reasonable. A fixed charge of 6d. is not sufficient because each club wishes to fix its own charge.
Throughout the country bridge clubs charge from 1s. to 4s. table money, depending on the club. The same applies for poker and any of the other normal games played in members' clubs. Hon. Members will recall what happened some years ago when the police were given the right to enter clubs. There was a terrible row about that, and I recall the then Lord Chancellor making efforts to exclude a certain proprietary club. I can see an enormous row arising as a result of this provision if an ordinary member's club which for years has not been interfered with suddenly finds that it cannot charge ordinary table money.
I trust that this matter will be carefully examined, with the result that these clubs will be entitled to charge what they regard as reasonable table money for the amenities they provide. Do not let us


have the answer that this is not a clear definition. It is perfectly clear that table money is for the amenities offered. There has been no difficulty about it. I hope that another place will be more interested in it than here and will take it up if we do not.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 147, in page 31, line 4, leave out ' (if any)'.
I am not sure what has happened, because I understand that in Committee a similar Amendment was accepted by the Government. However, for some unknown reason in the Bill as printed and amended the words "if any" still remain. Therefore, this Amendment was put down again to correct what I think must have been a mistake, since clearly an Amendment in identical terms was accepted in Committee.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am not certain about the genealogy of this drafting Amendment or the reasons for it, but I am delighted to say that the Government accept it. It amends Clause 39 in the same way that Clause 30(3) was amended in Committee. It is desirable that the two provisions should match.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40

GAMING AT ENTERTAINMENTS NOT HELD FOR PRIVATE GAIN

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 114, in page 31, line 25, after ' not', insert:
' gaming to which Part II of this Act applies or'.
This Amendment continues the process by which all gaming conducted on premises licensed or registered under Part II of the Bill is confined to the ambit of that Part. It removes the right of licensed and registered clubs or institutes to promote equal chance gaming for purposes other than private gain under the provisions of Clause 40.
That Clause is designed in particular to allow entertainments such as charitable bridge and whist drives; but it would also allow a members' club to provide bingo —an equal chance game—in aid of the club funds, a purpose other than private

gain. There is nothing that the Clause permits in the way of the games that may be played, or the charges that may be made and the prizes that may be offered—which are confined to very moderate sums—that are not also likely to be permitted under the normal conditions of licence or registration. The essential difference is that under Clause 40 the public may be admitted, so that the provision might be invoked by the clubs to evade the restrictions on participation in gaming on licensed or registered premises contained in Clause 12. The Amendment is, therefore, introduced primarily in the interests of enforcement, and it involves little deprivation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move Amendment No. 146, in page 32, line 30, at end insert:
(9) In relation to entertainments held pursuant to this section application may be made to the licensing authority to grant a special certificate of exemption from the provisions of this section and the licensing authority may permit such entertainment (promoted for purposes other than private gain) upon such terms and conditions as they shall set out in writing.
In determining the merits of the application the Board shall pay due regard to the benefit which may accrue to charity or other benefits arising by reason of the grant.
There is one mistake in the Amendment. It should not be
… the Board shall pay due regard ",
but
… the licensing authority shall pay due regard to the benefit which may accrue to charity or other benefits arising by reason of the grant.
This is an important matter, because the present provision of Clause 40 is absolutely fatuous. One may be trying to raise money for a new kidney unit for somebody suffering from a kidney disease, for the Empire Cancer Research Fund, for polio victims or other cases of that kind and may want to give a substantial charitable entertainment right across the board in one of the leading hotels, providing, for example, a first-class dinner and dance, with a large tombola upstairs and, incidental and pursuant to it, some game, and possibly a separate gaming room.
Under the Clause as it stands—and this I feel is a sobering fact—all one can give, in respect of all games played at


the entertainment which constitutes gaming is one payment by a player which must not exceed 10s.; and the totality of the prizes for those games under subsection (4) shall not exceed £50. The average tombola first prize in a first-class charitable entertainment is £750, and it is quite common to find that £2,000 or £2,500 is given to charity at the end of an evening at one of the leading hotels as a result of a charitable entertainment.
I urge the Home Secretary to find some way in which this can be done, with proper safeguards—and this is one. I do not necessarily suggest it is the best one. I would have preferred to have amended the whole of the Clause, but it seemed that the best course was to provide for a special application to be made. There is a clear precedent for this in the special occasions which we have in the Licensing Act provisions. I would draw an analogy between this and occasions when there may be a wedding or a particular Rotary Club feast and one is able to go to the local justices and apply to be permitted to drink into the early hours.
I specifically set down that the terms and conditions should be set out in writing so that there could be no question of abuse. When an order is made by the justices they would say that games may be operated. As in other parts of the Act, a precisely similar provision is being imposed on the justices to consider whether additional games may be played. It is not imposing any undue burden on them. Obviously, charities will make applications of this kind only for fairly substantial affairs, in the main in the metropolis, and in certain major cities throughout the country where there is some substantial charitable entertainment.
One of the ways in which nowadays one can get a lot of money for a really worthwhile charity is by giving a function at which there can be substantial lotteries and also an evening of gaming. A person may be willing to lose money at gaming during an evening of this kind knowing that it is for charity. This is particularly true of Jewish charities. Jews are particularly generous, as one knows, to many functions—to their own and other charities. I have seen Jews sit down and lose hundreds of pounds for the sake of charity. They will win

the prize and give it back to be put up again.
I want to ensure that we do not inhibit all this in the creeping paralysis which comes into certain corners of this Bill, and that we take a robust view. It is no good saying there can be abuse, for there can be abuses of everything. But people who promote these large scale entertainments are usually people of some position in public life. They usually employ a professional secretary. They have to do so in order to operate large fetes, bazaars and entertainments for charities. I hope we can take a generous attitude towards those who are doing this for the sake of charity.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Amendment relates to gambling and entertainment promoted otherwise than for private gain, and allows changes to be made or levies to be made on stakes. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has very much minimised or toned down the difficulties of deciding when licences should be granted, and indeed generally enforcing such provisions. It is necessary that a concession of this kind, of which anyone may take advantage without having to submit to licensing or registration, should be closely fenced round to prevent excesses and abuses developing which could be seriously prejudicial to the whole of the control system.
We could not willingly entrust powers of variation to licensing justices all over the country, nor, on the other hand, is the detailed scrutiny of individual applications, which are likely to be anomalous and petty, a proper responsibility to put on the Gaming Board which will have a great deal else to do without this sort of distraction. But wherever the responsibility might be placed, it would be an impossibly invidious one to discharge.
I submit that judgment of the relevant merits of charities and other causes can only be subjective, and the inevitable result would be that concessions made in one case would be found impossible to refuse in others, so that the whole system would snowball and be in danger of getting completely out of hand. This in itself would be bad enough, even if the scope for variation were confined to charges and prizes. If it were extended to allow games of unequal chance to be played, it could become very dangerous indeed.
The limits on charges and prizes set out in the Clause are extremely generous. In particular, we have increased the prize limit by as much as 150 per cent. on the present level. In doing so we have stretched the concept of an entertainment, which is what these activities are supposed to be, to its ultimate. With any further extension the activities could not be regarded as anything but gaming, and we have not yet accepted the principle that charities should be subsidised by gaming in the serious meaning of that term.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Surely Parliament has accepted that principle. We have said that there can be lotteries for purposes other than private gain, and there are special Acts of Parliament in that connection. The only question which we have to discuss is quantum. The principle that there can be lotteries and gaming for charity has been established. The amount of money is a matter of degree. The only question here is whether magistrates will be permitted to decide the amount and the terms of the quantum which will be laid down.

Mr. Morgan: I accept that, but the degree can be so regulated as to change the very substance of society's outlook on this matter. At the moment charities are subsidised by minor gaming, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware of the provisions of Section 48 of the 1963 Act. We do not pretend that we or anybody else can fairly distinguish between one disinterested object and another, and we believe that the same opportunities—neither more nor less— should be open to all charities. For that reason I invite the House to reject the Amendment.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: The Clause is designed to give exemptions to charitable functions and would permit gaming which was otherwise limited by Part II if it were an entertainment. The Under-Secretary's answer, therefore, is wholly inadequate. We are concerned only with the quantum. What can possibly be the objection to a charity making substantial sums for a worthy cause, and the reason for limiting it in the way proposed?

Mr. Morgan: Although a charity is mentioned, it is only one of presumably

innumerable factors which the licensing authorities would be enabled to consider.

Mr. Carlisle: I accept that, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Amendment is not particularly well drafted. If the principle were accepted, I am sure that my hon. Friend would be willing to withdraw it on the assurance that it would be reconsidered in another place.
This is the same gaming which Part I permits, if done privately. So we are saying that gaming in a private house is all right but not gaming to which Part II applies, for stakes above 10s., if it is done in a public place, although part of an entertainment to benefit a charity. Since it will cover such things as roulette to benefit a charity, I regret that the Government cannot accept the principle of the Amendment, which would allow the licensing authority to consider all the facts, which might lead it to increase the amounts allowed to be staked and won.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Could we have a reply on this? I meant to Limit the Amendment to what the justices determined to be a charitable entertainment. If it goes wider, would the Government consider limiting it in another place to such entertainment as the justices considered suitable? That would meet the point of me and my hon. Friends.

Mr. Morgan: With the leave of the House. I am willing to consider this, but I issue this warning to the hon. Gentleman, lest he be disappointed. His arguments would be valid, were it not for the provisions of Section 48 of the 1963 Act, which gives everything for which he could ask in the case of charitable dinners, drives and dances. This Clause is directed at something quite different from the weekly church whist drive.

Mr. Hogg: But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take a broad view. We all know that, in the great urban centres, and particularly the metropolis, there are large national charities which, for reasons good or bad, raise substantial sums by entertainment of this kind, which may not be limited to dances or gaming. It might include gaming, but if one looks at the broad purpose of this Bill, we are seen to be dealing—as the


Home Secretary has more than once reminded us—with a considerable social evil. There has been extortion and even, again as the Home Secretary has said, murder. But that is because commercial interests have got out of hand; and they have got out of hand because of the defective state of the law.
However, it is wholly outwith, wholly outside, the province of commercial activities that we are talking now. We are, of course, concerned with the morality of gaming for purposes of charity, but we should not take too puritanical a view. Great national causes can be served by sums of money where £50 is offered as a prize, or ten shillings is charged for admission; but those amounts may now be wholly inadequate. Sums which to our forefathers seemed to be very large are not necessarily very large to us. Will the whole of our society be subverted by giving a more favourable reception to an Amendment of this sort than has been given by the Government's spokesman?
One does not want to die in the last ditch for figures of this kind, but is it not rational to believe that a more permissive attitude to this kind of thing is now justified in the realm of charitable or quasi-charitable activities? Then one could ask if the right hon. Gentleman has not been too submissive to the licensing justices. They are very wise in their own generation and my opinion of them—for what it is worth, and that may not be much, although I have appeared before them in recent months—is that they are restrictive rather than permissive. Over a fairly long life I have found that they are restrictive in the granting of licences.
Is it necessary to be so grudging in this matter? We shall not press this to a Division at this hour of the night, and if something like this Amendment could be pursued in another place, I would hope that the Government would approach the matter in a wholly receptive spirit. There is a great deal to be said for it. I hope that what I have said will be borne in mind should the matter be considered again elsewhere.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made an appeal which, with respect to him, has been answered by the Under-Secretary. Clause

40 is really intended to deal with, say, Church whist drives run as weekly events, and my advice is that the case which he has made, and which has been made before, is covered by Section 48 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963. That would give the organisers everything they could want in relation to this kind of entertainment or charity. [Interruption.] I am told that this is the case.
I do not want to approach this in what hon. Members may think is a grudging spirit, but if it is covered by Section 48 of the 1963 Act, then there is no need for any of us to do anything about it. If it is not, then I will certainly look at his arguments.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The next Amendment selected is No. 154.

Mr. Callaghan: Before we come to Amendment 154, I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
It is nearly 11.30, which is the time I had in mind for adjourning. We have dealt with half the Clauses in terms of numbers and half the pages in terms of acreage. When I look at the work which we must do on the Bill tomorrow and remember that we will not start until 7 o'clock, and when I see that the overwhelming number of Amendments to be considered are Government Amendments designed to meet points which were raised in Committee, although some of them are not, I believe that, if we are sparing in our speeches in explaining those Amendments, we should be able to finish tomorrow night at a reasonable hour.

Mr. Hogg: I thank the Home Secretary for his consideration for us in this matter. Ft is convenient that we should adjourn at this stage. We have made considerable progress and it is not our fault that we will not begin at 3.30 tomorrow afternoon, as we had all supposed, but at 7 o'clock. If the atmosphere which the right hon. Gentleman has engendered so far today is continued, as I hope it will be, we should be able to finish tomorrow night; and, in these circumstances, I support the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered Tomorrow.

BRITISH NATIONALS (UNITED KINGDOM ENTRY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: On 21st December last, I initiated a debate based on complaints from members of the old Commonwealth about their restricted entry into the land of their fathers. During that debate, I pointed out that these people had the same cultural and educational backgrounds as ourselves and caused no difficulties from the point of view of the Welfare State or employment. I suggested that those who shared the same Crown and who took so many of our citizens into their countries should have special treatment on the basis of reciprocity, and this view was supported by several of my hon. Friends.
In his reply, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—who will also reply to this debate—rejected this argument and said:
That is a point which I do not think has much validity.
He later went on:
The argument which would be seen most widely in the world and in this country, however, is that somehow we had one rule for white and another for the coloured, one rule of the old Commonwealth and another for the new Commonwealth. I do not believe that that is what the House would wish."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1967, Vol. 756, c. 1532–5.]
It is six months since that debate took place, and it is now clear that by preventing the entry of people who have no racial, cultural or family ties with this country we are imposing equal controls on those who originated in this country, who still have family ties here, who share our culture and who still regard Britain as home. As far as I know, no other country acts in this manner.
Since the last debate I have naturally received many letters on the subject, and in the last six months certain events have further exacerbated public opinion. I will classify these under three heads. The first covers further complaints from Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders about their difficulties in getting into this country. Second, the

growing realisation that many Englishmen can now no longer return to their mother country. Third, the whole question of passports, which has been highlighted by the Government's inept handling of Sir Frederick Crawford.
I should like to know from the Minister what discretion the Home Secretary has to administer the law as it stands, and I shall, therefore, quote certain cases under those three headings.
First, the old Commonwealth citizens. In the Daily Express of 28th March this year there was an interview with an Australian sheep farmer, and I quote a remark of that gentleman, who said:
This is what really chokes us—all this fuss and bother to get into the Mother Country.
The article goes on to say that many people in the old Commonwealth thought their education was not complete without a lengthy stay in this country. It says:
Since the introduction of the new Commonwealth Immigration Bill many Australians feel the traditional alliance is in danger of being strangled by bureaucratic red tape.
I believe this view, expressed in this article, has been supported by a letter I received recently from an Australian clergyman, a gentleman whom I have never met and whose letter came out of the blue. He says:
I am an Australian clergyman married to an Ulsterwoman. I lived and worked here "—
that is, in this country—
 in the early 'fifties, and decided after 16 years back in Melbourne to bring my wife and family home to Britain in 1966.
He goes on to say he had heard of our new regulations of control of Commonwealth immigrants, but that he had also heard that for clergymen and graduates of universities there were exemptions from the general ban. In this, of course, he was wrong. He goes on to say:
While my children would, although all born in Australia, travel to and enter Britain on their mother's passport, I would be allowed only to come in as a tourist and would be forced to leave at the expiration of the allotted time.
He says he was asked to show that he had private means, which he did; and even then he was asked to show that he had employment to come to in Britain. He continues by saying:
So my passport was duly stamped and I was allowed to return to the land of my fathers. For this privilege, incidentally, I have to pay double taxation on my Australian


income, and although I am told, by those who have experienced this, that one may apply to have part of it refunded, it takes two years to get it back.
He concludes:
I demand the redress of the wrongs and insults which have been heaped upon the heads of the loyal British subjects who share the British way of life, the same British blood, the same British tongue, the same religion, and the same history, and whose only crime is that they are descended from the courageous Britons who went to plant the British flag in far distant lands and by immense toil and sacrifice extended the bounds of what they were proud to call the Empire, yet never lost their intense love for the land of their fathers, and who love to come and have their loyalty rekindled at the fountain head of British influence and culture.
I let this Australian speak, as I believe he does, for many in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Rhodesia. I turn to what, I believe, is the most important point of all, because it concerns us directly, as we obviously have a direct responsibility for our fellow British citizens.
As I understand them, the present regulations say that those with British passports can enter this country only if their parents or grandparents were born here; if they have had five years' residence here; if they were naturalised in Britain; if they are in the service of the Crown; or if they are serving in a society or company established in Britain. I suggest that it all depends how these regulations are interpreted. This is really the burden of this debate. I hope the Minister will deal with some of these cases I have cited and explain how the regulations are interpreted and—because we cannot in an Adjournment debate discuss changing them—what powers the Home Secretary has in these matters, because, as I suggest, much depends on their interpretation.
As they stand, many families who have served the Crown for generations, and whose parents and grandparents were therefore born abroad, can no longer enter their own country.
A friend of mine who had an excellent record in the Royal Navy was born in South Africa and his wife was born in Germany, where her parents were then serving. His grandparents were born in India, and his son, a serving officer, was born in Mauritius. His son must now apply for British rather than Mauritian

nationality. What nonsense this is! A paragraph that struck me in a letter he wrote me stated:
No Englishman, Welshman, Scot or Northern Irishman by descent should lose his right and citizenship in order to accommodate some other worthy person having rights stemming from another source.
I turn to a similar case of an Englishwoman living in Kenya, and shall quote the relevant paragraph from a long letter, which states:
It seems that all holders of Nairobi-issued ' D ' passports are affected by this new law "—
the new Commonwealth Immigrants Act—
not just Asians, as some people think. It would be interesting to find out from the British High Commission just what the numbers are of 'British' British passports. From those, there must be quite a number who, like myself, will have the greatest difficulty in proving 'substantial' contact with Britain. Are we to be penalised because, unlike some, we did not run away at independence but showed faith and confidence in an African Government and decided to stay on? It seems sheer bad luck that I come from a family who, because of the exigencies of the service, married and bred abroad—mostly in India— since early 19th century. Apart from one, … I do not think that I can prove the English birth of a single close relative who has been born in England for well over 100 years. Unlike the Asians, I am not clamouring to get into England yet—not while I still have a work permit here—but the day may come when I may well have to apply for a single and not a return ticket, and then what? Queue? Already non-Asian holders of British passports have been refused seats by the airlines from here to England, for all that they had return tickets. This must be clarified, and quickly.
I also have a case of a European who became a naturalised British subject many years ago in Kenya. He sent his son to school here and intended to retire with his family to this country after his work in Kenya was completed.
What discretion has the Home Secretary in that kind of case? What discretion has he to allow in Englishmen now living in Kenya before Asians whose families have never had any direct connection with this country?
Another example comes from rather nearer home. The British Consul-General in Antwerp sent out a letter to be disseminated through the British Legion to British subjects in Belgium, the relevant paragraph of which states:
Because of the complexity of the legislation"—


the Commonwealth Immigrants Act—
it is not possible to give full details in this notice, but in summary the position is that British subjects living in the Antwerp Consular District who were born outside the United Kingdom and who hold passports issued elsewhere than in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland will require in the passport an Entry Certificate marked 'Exempt'.
The person who sent me this document says:
In fact, I read it as amounting to an instruction for a British subject to obtain a visa for entry to his own country, which is more than would be required from a Dutch or Belgian subject visiting the United Kingdom…. Such a situation is simply intolerable for a British subject, born in Hong Kong only because his parents were then in the service of the Crown overseas. Such a predicament for a man who is the eleventh in direct line of an old Scottish family simply does not bear thinking about.
I have cited these cases to underline that many people who have maintained their links with this country and have sent their children to school here to maintain those links through the generations are now beginning to realise that they no longer have the right to return to what they still call home. This must be wrong.
Finally, the whole question of passports and the right of entry has been underlined by the confiscation of Sir Frederick Crawford's passport by Government order without appeal, and the problem has been compounded by the Government's veto on any investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner on the grounds that it affects relations or dealings between the Government and any other Government or any internal organisation of States or Governments.
This could mean that anyone disagreeing with the views of the United Nations could have his passport impounded by the British Government. Whether this is true or not—and it probably is not—it shows that the Government are getting deeper into the mire and closer to unilateral action by the Executive without recourse to the courts—and we all know where that leads.
Some years ago I visited Basutoland and found that, in order to maintain strict racial impartiality, when British civil servants were allowed home leave with their families, African civil servants were also allowed to take their families to Britain for a similar period. This

struck me as rather crazy, but at least it included both races. What the Government are now doing in relation to entry into Britain is to exclude both races. In the name of racial equality, we exclude those who are clearly British by descent, education and connection in order to appease those who have none of these connections and whose mother countries would not let our citizens enter them.
India would demand a residence permit. Nigeria has many qualifications with regard to work, residence and control of activities. Jamaica requires a deposit or surety bond. In Britain, Commonwealth citizens can vote once their names are on the register in say from three to 12 months. In India, Pakistan and in East Africa, British citizens have no voting rights at all.
Why no reciprocity? If all Commonwealth countries had the same rules, it could be fair, but they have not. Why do no other Commonwealth countries impose the bans on their own citizens that we impose on ours in the name of non-racialism? I believe that the British Government's main task is to protect the rights of British people, and what more basic right is there than to be able to return to the land of one's fathers?

11.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for raising this question. He performed a service to the House when he initiated the Adjournment debate of which he spoke last December.
The hon. Gentleman referred to some complaints he had received from Australia, and, of course, there are a number of cases which cause individuals some concern. I fear that often they are exaggerated and that the wrong end of the stick is taken. When things are explained in these cases and negotiations take place, the difficulties are usually removed. I will not go into details of such cases but my right hon. Friend is always anxious to mitigate difficulties where they arise and to administer the legislation for which he is responsible in as humane a manner as he can.
The hon. Gentleman read part of a letter from an Australian clergyman married to an Ulster woman. While I


have not identified her, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would let me have full details of the case, together with details of the other specific cases he referred to. I will look carefully into them to find the answers. However, the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of the case of the clergyman. Under the instructions given to immigration officers, in paragraph 29 of Command Paper 3064, an officer, when it comes to admitting the husband of a woman who is in any case entitled to come in, should take into account the strength of the wife's connections with the United Kingdom, including the length of residence here. It may well be that, in the circumstances in which it was explained, the problem here can be solved and I would be grateful for details of the case.
The hon. Member also made reference to Sir Frederick Crawford. He would not expect me to follow him in that matter, which is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary. The House had one opportunity and will undoubtedly have others of debating those issues. I have no doubt that the hon. Member will seek to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on those occasions.
I welcome the opportunity of this debate to explain some of the legal situations which are difficult to understand. I will explain the three categories into which some of the cases the hon. Member raised may fall. First, there are those who did not become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies when that status was created by the British Nationality Act, 1948. Secondly, there are those who did become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies but lost it when the Colony with which they were connected became independent. Thirdly, there are the people who are still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies but who no longer have free right of entry into the United Kingdom.
First a few words about the first class. In 1948, as a result of the Commonwealth Citizenship Conference held in the previous year, the British Nationality Act was passed which gave effect to a new conception of citizenship within the Commonwealth. Previously there had been only the single status of British subject,

but it had been agreed that in future each independent member of the Commonwealth should define its own citizenship and recognise citizens of every Commonwealth country as possessing the common status of British subject or Commonwealth citizen; the terms were to be synonymous.
Thus the common status of British nationality would remain but it would be obtained by possessing the citizenship of any of the constituent parts of the Commonwealth. One such constituent part was the United Kingdom and Colonies, which together formed an entity for citizenship purposes, and the 1948 Act provided that citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies should be automatically acquired by any person who was born or naturalised, or whose father was born or naturalised, in the United Kingdom or in any country which at that time was a Colony.
Those British subjects who did not fall within that definition would still be British subjects, but would be citizens of some other Commonwealth country, or if not they would remain as British subjects without citizenship. To have extended the definition of United Kingdom citizen, for instance, so as to include any person whose grandfather had been born in the United Kingdom, or whose father had served in the Armed Forces, would greatly have extended the amount of dual citizenship within the Commonwealth.
This meant that quite a number of people closely connected with the United Kingdom found themselves without citizenship of the United Kingdom, but the Act provided two ways in which such people could acquire United Kingdom citizenship. In the first place, as British subjects they were entitled at any time, after only 12 months' residence in the United Kingdom, to be registered as United Kingdom citizens. In the second place, the Act provided the Home Secretary with a temporary power to register such people as citizens if they had a male ancestor born in the United Kingdom and Colonies and had maintained a close connection with the United Kingdom and Colonies and intended to reside there in future. This facility was revived in 1958 for a further three years, but it lapsed at the end of 1962.
The second class of problems arises out of the subsequent grant of independence to many of the independent territories within the Commonwealth. In these cases the usual procedure has been that a citizenship scheme for the new country is worked out jointly between representatives of the United Kingdom and the territory concerned and embodied in the constitution of the new country. At the same time an Act is passed by this Parliament recognising the independence of the new country and, with certain exceptions, withdrawing citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from all who automatically become citizens of the new country under its constitution. Clearly, as successive acts of independence take place the number of people who are exclusively citizens of the United Kingdom diminishes.
The standard exceptions provide for the retention of United Kingdom citizenship by any person if he, his father, or his father's father was born, registered or naturalised in the United Kingdom or in a remaining Colony—in which case he retains citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These exceptions provide for nearly all the people who at the time of independence have a closer connection with the United Kingdom than with the newly independent country. These are some of the problems the hon. Member was concerned about.
I recognise that, however the exceptions are defined, there will always be some people who fall outside them but who nevertheless belong to the United Kingdom. To give such people a right of option to retain United Kingdom citizenship would have given the right also to almost the entire population of the new country. To permit individual grants of citizenship would have set a very difficult task of administration, and would have aroused false hopes in many people who belonged to the new country but would have liked to retain the protection of the United Kingdom; in a sense to have been citizens of two countries at once.
The law provides that any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who loses that citizenship on independence can easily get it back at any time if he has lived here for five years, or such shorter period as may be allowed, and the Home Secretary has some discretion

concerning that period. There is a similar facility for people abroad in Crown service, or in the employment of the United Nations, or of a company or society based in the United Kingdom.
The third type of problem to which the hon. Member referred is that of the person who did not lose his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies when the Colony with which he was connected became independent, because he did not become a citizen of that country under its constitution, but has been deprived by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968, of unconditional right of entry to this country. A number of the problems he referred to concern people who come within this category.
The matter was fully debated in the House during the passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, and I need not go over all the ground again. In any case, time does not permit me to do so. I must point out to the hon. Member that that Bill, now an Act, was concerned with immigration into the United Kingdom, and the exceptions in Clause 1 were therefore all defined in relation to the United Kingdom. They cover persons naturalised in the United Kingdom, but it would not have been appropriate to. extend them to cover persons naturalised in a Colony. There may be people who get naturalised in a Colony who are more closely connected with the United Kingdom, but the natural supposition is that if a person is naturalised in a Colony he belongs primarily to the Colony. It may be true that some people of European race who were naturalised as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in Africa feel that they belong to the United Kingdom more than to the African country in which they live, and one of those was referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but I must repeat that the definition in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act is not based on race but on connection with the United Kingdom.
This point was raised in debate by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who were accusing the Government of including a racial clause in the Bill. I pointed out then, and I point out to the hon. Gentleman, that the connection with the United Kingdom was the valid point. The hon. Gentleman may be disappointed that I have


not gone into some of the cases to which he made reference—

Mr. Wall: Could the hon. Gentleman say something about the Home Secretary's discretion on people coming from Kenya?

Mr. Ennals: Those who wish to come here must apply first for vouchers of various sorts. They can apply for entry permits if they are coming as visitors or if they are dependants of those who are here. It was established at the time the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was introduced that they could apply for special vouchers, and the voucher system is working quite reasonably. Although it is administered by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary, and in Nairobi by the High Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a right to look at individual cases. This is why I would say to the hon. Gentleman that either those cases ought to be submitted in Nairobi or, if he himself wishes to take

up a particular case with the Home Secretary, he or I will look at it with great care.
It is always difficult to give a definitive answer when there is a broad definition. In each case, we have to look back and find out what the link was and to find the nature of the citizenship held already. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look carefully at each case which he cares to present to me.
Even though I have not been able to deal with the precise cases in his mind, I hope that he will not feel that he has wasted his time, let alone that of the House and those reporting its proceedings. He has given me an opportunity to explain the principles on which this is worked, which are complicated and technical. I have greatly appreciated this chance to get on record the definition under which we operate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.